Taft Sanitary Landfill Draft EIR - Kern County, California · 2700 “M” Street, Suite 500...

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Taft Sanitary Landfill Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Appendix A

APPENDIX A

Notice of Preparation And Comments

Scoping Meeting Minutes

INITIAL STUDY NOTICE OF PREPARATION

TAFT SANITARY LANDFILL PROJECT

General Plan Amendment No. 2, Map 138 Modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 1, Map 138

Permit Revision Project

DOUGLAS E. LANDON, INTERIM DIRECTOR Kern County Waste Management Department

2700 M Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, California 93301

(661) 862-8900

February 2009

Printed on Recycled Paper

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

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

NATURAL RES CONS SRVC 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

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

ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSERVANCY 1 SHOAL COURT SACRAMENTO CA 95831

DRINKING WATER FIELD - OPERATIONS BRANCH 1040 EAST HERNDON AVE #205 FRESNO CA 93720-3158

DRINKING WATER & ENV MNGMT DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES PO BOX 997413 SACRAMENTO CA 95899-7413

JESSE DHALIWAL DRINKING WATER 1200 DISCOVER DR STE 100 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIV CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL PO BOX 942898 SACRAMENTO CA 94298-0001

PLANNING/LAND BANK BLDG CALTRANS DISTRICT 6 PO BOX 12616 FRESNO CA 93778

BARBARA FRY CARB - STATIONARY RESOURCE PO BOX 2815 SACRAMENTO CA 95812

CEQA TRACKING CENTER CDTSC PO BOX 806 SACRAMENTO CA 95812-0806

SUE O'LEARY: MAIL STOP 10A-15 CIWMB PO BOX 4025 SACRAMENTO CA 95812-4025

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFO CNTR CSUB 9001 STOCKDALE HWY BAKERSFIELD CA 93311

LIBRARY CSU BAKERSFIELD 9001 STOCKDALE HWY BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

DIV OF LAND RES PROTECTION DEPT OF CONSERVATION 801 K STREET MS 18-01 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-3528

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 1015 - 11TH AVENUE DELANO CA 93216

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF MARICOPA PO BOX 548 MARICOPA CA 93252

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

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

PLANNING COMISSIONER CHRIS BABCOCK PO BOX 185 MOJAVE CA 93502

PLANNING COMISSIONER JEFF FLORES 117 MINER STREET BAKERSFIELD CA 93305

PLANNING COMISSIONER PETER BELLUOMINI PO BOX 426 EDISON CA 93220

PLANNING COMISSIONER RON SPRAGUE 1914 ALTA VISTA DRIVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93305

PLANNING COMISSIONER LETICIA PEREZ 5900 BAYWOOD BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

SUPERVISOR JON MCQUISTON DISTRICT 1

SUPERVISOR DON MABEN DISTRICT 2

SUPERVISOR MIKE MAGGARD DISTRICT 3

SUPERVISOR WATSON DISTRICT 4

SUPERVISOR RUBIO DISTRICT 5

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT

AIRPORTS DEPARTMENT

COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPT

COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

COUNTY CLERK

STEVE SCHUETT COUNTY COUNSEL

FLOODPLAIN ESS

SURVEY ESS

BILL O'RULLIAN EHSD

BRAIN MARSHALL FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE SAFETY

DIANE DUQUETTE, Director LIBRARY, ADMINISTRATION

PARKS & RECREATION DEPT

PLANNING BOARD PLANNING DEPT

CHERYL CASDORPH PLANNING DEPT

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

RMA

ROADS DEPT

SHERRIFF'S DEPT

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

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

DELANO MOSQUITO ABATEMENT PO BOX 220 DELANO CA 93216

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

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

KERN COG 1401 - 19TH STREET BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

SO CAL GAS 1510 NORTH CHESTER AVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

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

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

MATTHEW VESPA BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 1095 MARKET STREET STE 511 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-1628

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

KERN KEAWEAH CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB

SMART GROWTH COALITION 441 VINELAND ROAD BAKERSFIELD CA 93307

KERN VALLEY INDIAN COUNCIL PO BOX 168 KERNVILLE CA 93238

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

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

NEIL PEYRON, CHAIRPERSON TULE RIVER INDIAN TRIBE PO BOX 589 PORTERVILLE CA 93258

DELIA DOMINGUEZ TEJON INDIANS 981 NORTH VIRGINIA COVINA CA 91722

CLARENCE ATWELL SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA PO BOX 8 LEMORE CA 93245

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

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

CAROLINE FARRELL 1302 JEFFERSON STREET STE 2 DELANO CA 93215

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

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

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE PO BOX 953 JOSHUA TREE CA 92252

CA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 418 BROOKHAVEN DRIVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93304

LEGAL DIRECTOR COMMUNITIES/BETTER ENVI 1440 BROADWAY #701 OAKLAND CA 94612

KERN AUDUBON SOCIETY PO BOX 3581 BAKERSFIELD CA 93385-3581

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ASSOC OF CA 1029 J STREET STE 300 SACRAMENTO CA 95814

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

CITY OF TEHACHAPI ED GRIMES - SWMAC MEMBER 115 S ROBINSON STREET TEHACHAPI CA 93561

COUNCILMAN ZACK SCRIVNER - 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

KERN REFUSE DISPOSAL LARRY MOXLEY 6208 TIMBERCREEK DRIVE BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

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

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

PATRICIA DEMOND 1412 - 17TH STREET #558 BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

MICHAEL GEYER PO BOX 60147 BAKERSFIELD CA 93386-0147

JOYCE LOBASSO P.O. BOX 6003 BAKERSFIELD CA 93386

METROSTUDY 5001 CALIFORNIA AVE #210 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

DAVID CLARK THOMAS ROADS IMPROV PROG 1600 TRUXTUN AVENUE #300 BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

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

KERN COUNTY MUSEUM 3801 CHESTER AVENUE BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

LAFCO 5300 LENNOX AVENUE #303 BAKERSFIELD CA 93309

FILE ROOM LIBRARY

SOUTHERN REGION OFFICE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY APCD 34946 FLYOVER COURT BAKERSFIELD CA 93308

RON HOLCOMB RWQCB

1685 E STREET FRESNO CA 93706-2007

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

TAFT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 701 SEVENTH STREET TAFT CA 93268

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

WESTSIDE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 500 CASCADE PLACE TAFT CA 93268

________________________________________________PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Taft Sanitary Landfill NOP Permit Revision Project Page 1 February 2009

INTRODUCTION: This is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Taft Sanitary Landfill (TSLF) Permit Revision Project to revise Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 15-AA-0061. The project will allow for an increase in the permitted height of the facility, ultimately increasing the permitted capacity and lifespan of the site. The project will then close the facility once the increased permitted capacity is reached. Associated land use applications will also take place as part of the project. PROJECT LOCATION: The TSLF is located in the unincorporated area of southwestern Kern County, approximately five 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 public access road (see Map 1). The project area consists of three separate parcels of land; APN 298-050-13, 298-050-29, and 298-050-23, totaling 161.7 acres (See Figure 1). The 161.7-acre project area encompasses the entire 100-acre current permitted facility boundary; the remaining 61.7 acres is used as landfill buffer. Current Permitted Disposal Boundary (85 acres): Of the 100-acre facility, 85 acres are currently permitted for the disposal of waste. Subtitle D Refuse Area (35 acres): Of the 85-acre current permitted disposal area, 35 acres currently have waste in place. This is commonly referred to as the Subtitle D Refuse Area. APN 298-050-13. The TSLF facility is located on this 100-acre parcel. Within the parcel, 85 acres make up the current permitted disposal area. The entire 100-acre 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 and Petroleum- Min. 5-Acre Parcel Size) and zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture). The project proposes this entire parcel be designated as General Plan Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer); (See Map 3a). The project also proposes for the potential of soil stockpiling within this area (See Map 6). 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 and Petroleum- Min. 5 Acre Parcel Size) and zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture). The project proposes this entire parcel be designated as General Plan Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer), (see Map 3a).



Figure 1 Project Area Taft Sanitary Landfill



PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Kern County Planning Department case numbers have been assigned for this project as follows:

GPA 2, Map 138; and Modification of CUP 1, Map 138

The major components of the proposed project are as follows:

Amend the Kern County General Plan and Appendix E Map from Map Code 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum min. 5 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 Maps 3a and 3b).

Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP), No. 1, Map 138 for the total project area (161.7 acres); this includes the 100-acre landfill property as well as 61.7 acres of buffer;

Record a Lot Line Adjustment or Redundant Deed to merge the multi-parcel site into one parcel;

Revise the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) for the TSLF to: Change the permitted facility boundary from 100 acres to a maximum of

161.7 acres to include the landfill buffer areas; Increase the lifespan of the landfill by approximately 22 years (from

2052 to 2074); Vertically expand over the permitted disposal area to increase the

permitted elevation of the landfill by 93 (from 775 MSL up to 868 MSL, including final cover) and increase the depth of excavation to 125 below ground surface (BGS). This will increase the permitted capacity by 2,212,453 cubic yards (from 8,787,547 cubic yards to approximately 11,000,000 cubic yards);

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).

Provide final closure borrow soils to be excavated from within the permitted disposal area and potentially stockpiled in the south buffer area. Additional borrow soils, if needed, could potentially be taken from the south buffer area that will have been previously disturbed by the stockpiling of soils;

Include a revised preliminary closure and post-closure maintenance plan, and then complete closure construction over the entire disposal area (See Map 6);

No increase in operating days and hours is being proposed; and Installation of a liner over the permitted unlined area, totaling 36 acres (See

Map 6). The liner used for horizontal expansion will be an engineered alternative liner system consistent with State and Federal Regulations.

With approval of this project, the closure date for the facility is expected to be in 2074. KCWMD estimates that under the current (2002) final fill plan, the existing facility will reach permitted capacity in 2052 if the remaining permitted area is lined. KCWMD



determined this date by performing projection studies which have been documented in the TSLF Capacity Study, January 2008. This document can be referenced at the KCWMD office. The volumetric basis for the assessment of future disposal capacity and site life assumes that each ton of waste disposal results in 1.77 cubic yards of volume used. This fill rate factor has been derived from Global Position Satellite (GPS) surveys and tonnage records of the landfill. Further refinements in the fill rate are expected over time. The closure date is an estimate subject to annual review and revision based upon such factors as fill rate, waste settlement, and regional growth rates. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The TSLF is an active Class III sanitary landfill, owned by the County of Kern, and operated by the KCWMD. Development of the landfill was approved by CUP No. 1, Map 138 in 1972. In 2007 the TSLF received an average of 101 tons of waste per day. The site is permitted to receive non-hazardous solid wastes, including residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and demolition debris. The KCWMD operates a variety of waste diversion/recycling programs at the landfill. These include, but are not limited to:

Tires: collected and stockpiled in a designated area at the site until a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling;

White goods: collected and stockpiled in a designated area until a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling;

Electronic Waste Materials: diverted from disposal and collected in designated areas. The collection points are located in areas equipped with a ground barrier such as concrete/asphalt slabs, tarps, bins, and/or cardboard boxes located on pallets. Signs and labeling are utilized to distinguish the electronic waste collection area. When a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling or one year, which ever is less, the electronic waste shall be removed from the site by County contracted personnel and transported to off- site facilities for recycling;

Scrap Metal: collected and stockpiled in a designated area until a sufficient quantity has been accumulated for economic recycling;

Clean Loads of Inert Materials: stockpiled in designated areas for use in the construction of all-weather roads, dumping pads and drainage control;

Universal Wastes: as defined in Title 22 CCR, Chapter 23 or according to DTSC guidance (including, but not limited to, cathode ray tube (CRT) devices, fluorescent light tubes, batteries, waste oil and used oil filters) are not accepted for disposal and are handled in the same manner as hazardous wastes. Universal wastes that can be handled and readily recycled are diverted from the waste stream and collected in designated areas. Storage areas and containment are dependent upon universal waste types. Handling protocols are consistent with the appropriate sections of Title 22, CCR Chapter 23 or according to DTSC guidance. The collection points will be a concrete/asphalt slab



or will have a ground cover in place. Appropriate labeling or signs will be utilized. A container for the collection of CRT glass will be provided. Roll-offs or other containers may be used to store or transport universal wastes, CRTs, and other selected electronic waste devices. Individual universal wastes, CRTs, and electronic waste devices may be transported by County personnel to offsite locations for proper disposal or recycling. Employees will be trained in universal waste, CRT and electronic waste hazard awareness, safety, and cleanup procedures. Universal wastes, CRTs, and electronic waste may be stored for up to one year in accordance with DTSC regulations;

Used Motor Oil: collected in Underwriters Laboratory approved, aboveground tanks with secondary containment and a spill pan containing absorbent. The tanks are emptied as needed by a licensed oil hauler; and

Used Oil Filters: collected in a designated container. The topography at the TSLF slopes gently toward the north-east (3.8 percent grade), with natural surface elevations ranging from 600 to 700 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The existing landfill is completely surrounded by a fence, and there is an existing mining operation adjacent to the project site. Permanent structures at the TSLF 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 the disposal cell (see Map 2). Portable facilities will be located 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 operators or construction contractors field office, water storage

tank; and From time to time, temporary fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluid tanks may be

located on-site for servicing equipment. The regions climate can be characterized as Mediterranean, with hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Most of the site has been disturbed by landfill operations and related activities such as access roads, drainage facilities and monitoring wells. The sanitary landfill site has been substantially denuded of vegetation as a consequence of refuse containment and soil borrow. Vegetation in the region consists of mainly non-native grasses and saltbush scrub. The non-native grassland habitat in the project area support a wide variety of birds, mammals and reptiles. Special status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity project include: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard (Gambelia sila), San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni), and Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Soil types at the site consist of bedded sands and gravelly sands, intermixed with fine to medium 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. Prominent faults in the region are the McKittrick Thrust and the San Andreas Fault, 12 miles northwest and 12 miles west, respectively, of the TSLF. More locally, the Buena Vista thrust fault emerges approximately three miles south of the TSLF and has a mapped length of approximately 2.5 miles, trending east-west. (Geomatrix, 2002) (see Map 5). 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. Current Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for the TSLF 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 470 feet bgs in early 2008. 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, respectively. Vehicular traffic would take access to the site from Elk Hills Road, a two lane paved road, via a paved access road to the landfill. The landfill is located approximately one mile north of Highway 119 in a rural setting. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT: Alternative projects will be considered by KCWMD. Three potential alternative options, as well as no project, are mentioned below and will be analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Alternative A: No Project 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 is proposed under this alternative (see Map 4). Alternative B: Installation of a Liner Only 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 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 Maps 3a and 3b).

Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1, Map 138 for the total project area (161.7 acres); this includes the 100-acre landfill property as well as 61.7 acres of buffer;

Record a Lot Line Adjustment or Redundant Deed to merge the multi-parcel site onto one parcel;

Revise the SWFP for the TSLF 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 liner over the permitted unlined area, totaling 36 acres. The liner used for horizontal expansion will be an engineered alternative liner system consistent with State and Federal Regulations. No increase in elevation or operating days and hours is being proposed. Alternative C: Closure Under Current Permitted Conditions 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) to Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) designation for approximately 61.7 acres of the solid waste buffer area (See Maps 3a and 3b).

Modify the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1, Map 138 for the total project area (161.7 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 capacity is reached; and

Once the landfill reaches capacity, appropriate closure activities will commence.

Alternative C does not propose to increase daily permitted tonnage, traffic, elevation or the current waste footprint. No increase in operating days and hours is being proposed under this alternative. Alternative D: 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 a Map Code 3.4.1 (Solid Waste Disposal Facility Buffer) designation for approximately 61.7 acres of the solid waste buffer area (See Maps 3a and 3b).

Modify Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 1, Map 138 for the total project area (161.7 acres); this includes the 100-acre landfill property as well as 61.7 acres of buffer;

Record a Lot Line Adjustment or Redundant Deed to merge the multi-parcel site onto one parcel;

Continued operations under the current permitted conditions until capacity is reached within the existing refuse footprint (Subtitle D



Refuse Area) in 2012; Construct a transfer station within the permitted facility boundary; and Once the landfill reaches capacity, appropriate closure activities under

the current (2002) final fill plan will commence (see Map 4). Alternative D proposes to continue operations under the current (2002) 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. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The TSLF is a public landfill owned by the County of Kern and managed by the KCWMD. The main objective of the KCWMD, as stated in the October 14, 1993 Statement of Mission 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 the increased capacity of the TSLF in response to the growth experienced by the County of Kern. Specific objectives developed for the project are as follows:

Provide approximately 2,200,000 cubic yards of additional waste disposal capacity at the TSLF;

Provide for the 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;

Minimize land use conflicts and environmental impacts; Provide a cost-effective disposal service to the residents of Kern

County; Minimize haul distances for waste collection vehicles; Provide additional emergency capacity for disaster preparedness; and Reduce average transport distances for area waste streams.

PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: An EIR for the TSLF (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 TSLF for reduced landfill volumes as per AB939 (1989).

The current SWFP (No. 15-AA-0061) associated with the March 1993 EIR is dated February 23, 2004.

___________________________________________________________ACRONYMS

AMs Avoidance and Minimization protocols APN Assessors Parcel Number BGS Below Ground Surface BNLL Blunt Nosed Leopard Lizard BuO Burrowing Owl CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CRT Cathode Ray Tube CUP Conditional Use Permit dB Decibel DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Endangered Species Act FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning Satellite HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HWEP Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program KCEHSD Kern County Environmental Health Services Department KCWMD Kern County Waste Management Department LEA Local Enforcement Agency LOS Level of Service MRZ Mineral Resources Zone MSL Mean Sea Level MSW Municipal Solid Waste NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System PC/PCMP Preliminary Closure/ Post Closure Maintenance Plan RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDSI Report of Disposal Site Information RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCH State Clearinghouse SJAS San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel SJKF San Joaquin Kit Fox SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SWAT Solid Waste Assessment Test SWFP Solid Waste Facility Permit SWIS Solid Waste Information System SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TSLF Taft Sanitary Landfill USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WDR Waste Discharge Requirements

__________________________________________ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM


Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Populations and Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic

Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

_________________________________ _____________________ Signature Date _Donn Fergerson__________________ ____Nancy L. Ewert________________ Printed Name For

__________________________________________ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM


Evaluation of Environmental Impact: (1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the

information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

(2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

(3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

(4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced).

(5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should be identify the following:

(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist where within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts

(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

(7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

(8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a projects environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

(9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

(a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.

(b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

__________________________________IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

I. AESTHETICS

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Responses: (a) The project site is not considered to be a scenic vista nor is it an area

designated as a scenic route in Kern County. There are no designated scenic vistas or view points on or adjacent to the landfill property that would include views of the landfill. Therefore, there is no impact on designated scenic view points related to the proposed project.

(b) The project site does not contain scenic resources. This includes, but is not limited to: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Nor is the nearby Highway 119 designated as a state scenic highway. Therefore, the project does not have an impact on such scenic resources.

(c) The project sites background of natural hills and ridges could be considered of scenic value. The existing site, at 775 MSL, is visibly distinct from the natural landscape due to the disturbed nature of the landfills surface. The landfill is an existing facility and has become an established and accepted part of the landscape. The proposed project would alter the visual character of the site and the surrounding area by increasing the permitted height of the facility BY 93 through vertical expansion. Upon final closure of the proposed project, KCWMD will landscape the facility with a low maintenance, un-irrigated ground cover, and maintain the area as fenced open space during the post-closure maintenance period. This revegetation will improve the visual appearance of the sites graded embankments. However, this project will alter the visual characteristics of the site. Impacts are potentially significant.

(d) Operations at the TSLF are seven days per week, from no earlier than 7:00 a.m. to no later than 5:00 p.m. During periods of darkness (typically, but not limited to, early morning and early evening hours of November, December, January, and February), landfill operations will be performed in a manner that ensures personnel safety. The use of ancillary lighting equipment to adequately illuminate the operations may be used. Positioning of ancillary lighting will be such that spill over and glare would not be substantial, nor would cause an adverse affect on nighttime views in the area. There are no impacts from this project.

_______________________________________________________________________________________ Taft Sanitary Landfill NOP Permit Revision Project Page 12 February 2009


II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts

to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract?

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use?

d) Result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15206(b)(3) Public Resources Code)?

Responses:

(a) The project site is not listed as Important Farmland by the California Department of Conservation. Although the site is zoned A (Exclusive Agriculture) in the Kern County Zoning Ordinance, the project site is an existing sanitary landfill. The site has never been farmed. There are no impacts to converting prime agricultural lands.

(b) No portion of the project site is subject to Williamson Act contract nor is it

currently used as agricultural land. Therefore, there are no impacts to development of land under Williamson Act Contract.

(c) According to the Kern County General Plan, sanitary landfills and landfill buffer are compatible land uses adjacent to agriculture lands. According to the information available, none of the surrounding properties are under a land use contract or are farmed. No impacts are noted.

(d) The Kern County Agricultural Uniform Rule does not recognize open space as

an agricultural use, and has not authorized any contracts based on open space use only. There are no impacts that can result from an open space contract cancellation.



III. AIR QUALITY


Impact

Significant With

Mitigation Incorporation


Impact No

Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria

established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard as adopted in (c)i, (c)ii, or as established by EPA or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Specifically, would implementation of the project exceed any of the following adopted thresholds:

i.) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Operational and Area Sources Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 10 tons per year.

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 10 tons per year.

Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 tones per year. Stationary Sources as determined by District Rules Severe Nonattainment 25 tons per year.

Extreme Nonattainment 10 tons per year.

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Responses:

a) The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has jurisdiction in eight counties located in the San Joaquin Valley, including the western portion of Kern County. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) has been designated in attainment for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide and non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM

10 &

PM2.5

) by Federal and California standards. The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires that all reasonable stationary and mobile source control measures be implemented in non-attainment areas to help achieve a mandated, five percent per year reduction in ozone precursors to reduce population exposures. The landfill and employees were in existence when the



original Clean Air Plan was compiled. Through compliance with adopted rules and regulation and consistency with the local land use plans, the project would comply with the applicable Clean Air Plan for SJVAPCD. Emissions from the project have the potential to be significant under Kern County and the SJVAPCDs CEQA significance threshold of 10 tons per year NOx. The SJVAPCD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures though educational programs or fines, when necessary. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project may conflict with, or interfere with, the applicable air quality plan, and impacts would be potentially significant. An Air Quality Impact Analysis will be prepared for this project and the findings will be further analyzed within the EIR.

b) The TSLF is currently permitted to receive up to 338 vehicles per day. The

project proposes to increase this amount by 12 vehicles per day, to 350 permitted vehicles per day. The TSLF utilizes landfill equipment required to handle up to 419 tons of waste per day. The project proposes to increase this permitted amount to 800 tons per day. The project will require the excavation and grading of approximately 2,200,000 cubic yards of soil. This excavation may violate the adopted threshold for criteria pollutants. Impacts are potentially significant. An Air Quality Impact Analysis will be presented in the EIR that will address stationary, construction, and mobile emissions.

Sanitary landfills have been identified as a source of greenhouse gas

emissions. As organic wastes decompose in landfills, they produce methane and other greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. Impacts are potentially significant. A climate change impact analysis will be prepared to study the impact of greenhouse gases from this project. These findings will be further analyzed in the EIR.

c) The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) has been designated in attainment

for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide and non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter (PM

10 & PM

2.5) by federal and California

standards. Impacts from this project are potentially significant. An Air Quality Impact Analysis will be prepared for this project and the findings will be further analyzed within the EIR.

d) The landfill is located approximately five miles upwind from the City of Taft.

There are no schools within a mile of the facility boundary. The nearest receptor is a single residence currently located approximately one mile east of the disposal area. The project may result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are potentially significant. An Air Quality Impact Analysis will be prepared for this project and the findings will be further analyzed within the EIR.



e) Any actions related to odors are based on citizen complaints to local government and the Kern County Environmental Health Services Department (KCEHSD). According to KCEHSD staff, there have been no complaints regarding odors from the TSLF. Timely placement of daily, intermediate, and final soil cover over the refuse disposal area reduces any odor issues. An increased capacity and lifespan is not likely to expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. Impacts are less than significant.



IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a) 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?

b) 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?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect 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?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Responses:

a) In 1997 the KCWMD 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 threatened or endangered species on the site. In 2005, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) issued KCWMD a Consistency Determination Agreement (2080.1) permitting the incidental take of threatened or endangered species on 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 landfill. Future soil stockpiles may occur in the buffer area, but no disturbance will occur in the buffer until the amended HCP is approved and the required mitigation is implemented. The proposed vertical and horizontal expansion of the disposal area will occur within the current HCP



covered footprint of the permitted facility, and as such the KCWMD is required to meet all Avoidance and Minimization protocols (AMs). This includes a pre-activity survey within 30 days of ground disturbance.

A total of 141 acres were acquired for compensation credits for the disturbance of 47 acres of potential habitat within the 100-acre permitted facility boundary. These credits were purchased from the ARCO Coles Levee Ecosystem Preserve for disturbances covered under the HCP. Prior to conducting a proposed activity, qualified biologists will conduct surveys to determine whether species occur on the project site and if so, determine if the activity has the potential for incidental take of individuals of the species and/or their habitat. The potential for take will be assessed and the appropriate AMs will be recommended that will remain consistent with the management protocols summarized and described in the HCP. Impact avoidance and minimization protocols will be triggered by a survey that will determine if covered species are utilizing the habitat to be affected by the activity, or a finding that the activity is likely to affect habitat utilized by covered species during the period of the proposed activity. For all activities, avoiding impacts is preferable to minimizing them, and AMs will be implemented as practicable. Protocols to reduce levels of take are an integral part of the proposed project, and upon approval of Amendment 1 of the HCP, these protocols will be integrated into the operation manual for the facility. A biological report was prepared for the TSLF to determine whether any listed or candidate plant and wildlife species occur within or adjacent to the sanitary landfill. Activities from the project may potentially impact the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF), Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (BNLL), San Joaquin Antelope squirrel (SJAS) and the Western burrowing owl (BuO). The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on migratory bird species or migration of other wildlife species on the project site due to compliance with the avoidance /minimization requirements mandated in the HCP and the site specific CDFG issued 2081.

San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) The project area contains suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. There also exists some chance of take of individual foxes due to injury and mortality during construction and operation. Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard (Gambelia sila) The project site contains habitat suitable for blunt-nosed leopard lizards. However, no individuals were observed during protocol surveys conducted by qualified personnel following CDFG approved methodologies in the summer of 2006. KCWMD cannot request authorization from CDFG for take of BNLL as defined under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) because the species is fully protected under the Fish and Game Code. USFWS will not issue a permit under the federal ESA for take that is inconsistent with state law.



Incidental harassment, which could occur as a result of project activities, is included under the definition of take under federal ESA but not under CESA. Therefore, take by harassment can be authorized by USFWS (10(a) permit) without conflicting with CESA. San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni) The project site contains suitable habitat for the San Joaquin antelope squirrel. During site assessment surveys completed June through September 2006, numerous individuals were observed in the sites vicinity. Other Species of Concern: Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) During site assessment surveys completed June through September 2006 individuals were observed in the sites vicinity. Focused surveys for this species will be implemented in the project area to adequately address impacts to this animal prior to ground disturbance. Impacts are potentially significant.

b) There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified by

CDFG on the project site or around the project vicinity. Therefore the project has no impact on riparian or other sensitive habitat.

c) There are no wetlands on the project site or around the project vicinity.

Therefore there are no impacts to any federally protected wetlands. d) The majority of the project area has been previously disturbed by landfill

operations and related activities such as access roads, drainage facilities and monitoring wells and has been enclosed by a chain link fence. The proposed project will not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. There is sufficient open space surrounding the landfill property such that the project should not result in an inhibition of movement or migration of terrestrial species. Impacts are less than significant.

e) Vegetation cover ranges from sparse to moderate in highly disturbed patches

throughout the property. Nonnative grasses like bromes, foxtail, fescues and oats dominate, with scattered saltbush scrub. No plant species observed are state or federally listed, are candidates for listing, or have been listed by the California Native Plant Society. The project site does not contain oak trees. There are no impacts from this project.

f) In 1997 the KCWMD prepared the Kern County Waste Facilities HCP and

obtained a Section 10(a) permit from the USFWS which allows for the incidental take of threatened or endangered species on the site. In 2005 CDFG issued KCWMD a Consistency Determination Agreement (2080.1) permitting the incidental take of threatened or endangered species on the site as defined



by the 1997 HCP. In 2008, CDFG issued a 2081 permit specifically for the incidental take of SJAS at this site. An amendment to the 1997 HCP is in development, and includes the buffer property surrounding the Taft landfill. The proposed horizontal 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. This includes a pre-activity survey within 30 days of ground disturbance. The excess soil generated from the excavation of the expansion may be stockpiled in the buffer area until needed for closure. If the stockpile is insufficient to complete landfill closure, additional borrow soils may come from the buffer area. An amendment to include landfill buffer areas into the Kern County Waste Facilities HCP is currently in progress. A copy of the HCP, the Implementation Agreement, and the accompanying Mitigated Negative Declaration, CDFG Consistency Determination Agreement (2080.1), and CDFG Incidental Take Permit (2081) are available for review at the KCWMD. The Kern County Waste Facilities HCP includes measures to avoid and minimize incidental take of endangered and threatened species. Implementation of the avoidance/minimization mitigation protocols contained in the Kern County Waste Facilities HCP, Consistency Determination Agreement (2080.1) and site/SJAS specific 2081 will reduce all potential impacts of the proposed action to less than significant levels. Development of the buffers shall include notification and consultation with agencies to insure that all avoidance/minimization and mitigation for take to affected species is maintained. Impacts are less than significant.



V. CULTURAL RESOURCES


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Responses:

a-d) A formal archaeological records search was completed in 1992 by Resource Management International at the TSLF within the currently permitted facility boundary. The findings showed that the site was not considered to have any historic value or archaeological significance, nor would the project destroy a unique paleontological resource. No historic-era sites, features, artifacts or trash accumulations were observed during the 1992 survey. Several bulldozed ridge lines and knolls were observed. These features are believed to represent the locations of earlier oil well drilling rigs or features, and may have at one time contained what might be considered historic features and artifacts. However, the physical remains of these features were apparently purposefully removed when oil field operations were concluded on the property. This area is near the former Buena Vista lake beds, an area known to have Native American artifacts. Paleontological remains could also be unearthed during the construction of the liner, and the buffer property has not yet been surveyed. Impacts to historical and paleontological resources are potentially significant.



VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Responses:

a) The project site is located within an area that is susceptible to strong ground shaking associated with seismic events. The principal geological structures responsible for shaping the geology of the San Joaquin Valley consist of several major and minor faults. Prominent faults in the region are the McKittrick Thrust, 12 miles northwest of the TSLF, and the San Andreas Fault. More locally, the Buena Vista thrust fault emerges approximately 3 miles south of the TSLF and has a mapped length of approximately 2.5 miles, trending east-west. There are also several normal faults in Elk Hills, which were active in the Quaternary, but not within historic time. Impacts are less than significant.


Permanent structures at the TSLF include a gatehouse, concrete loading pad, and scale. To minimize the effects of strong earthquakes and in accordance with CCR Title 27, Section 20370, the existing landfill and gatehouse have been designed and built to withstand the Maximum Probable Earthquake so that landfill systems are not compromised during a major seismic event.


However, strong ground shaking could potentially impact the vertical and horizontal expansion, and impacts are therefore potentially significant. Due to the great depth to groundwater in the area surrounding the TSLF, liquefaction does not present a major potential hazard within the project area. The final cover and slopes of the waste unit will be constructed to withstand the maximum probable earthquake per Section 2547(a) of Title 27 CCR. The project is not subject to landslides according geotechnical reports. No impacts are expected.

b) Drainage sumps, pipes, and channels are to be designed to handle runoff from

a 24-hour, 100 year storm in accordance with Article 20365 of Title 27 and the Kern County Hydrology Manual. Landfill slope control is achieved by engineering the slopes at a 3:1, run to rise design. Slopes designed at this ratio have been shown to be stable and resistant to wind generated soil erosion and precipitation run-off erosion. This design minimizes infiltration in the areas most subject to erosion. Soil excavation of topsoil for daily cover and closure are currently permitted landfill activities, and therefore the project will not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Landfill surfaces will be re-vegetated following closure to further reduce erosion potential. Impacts are less than significant.

c) According to the Kern County Seismic Hazard Atlas Map (Map 5), the project site is not subject to significant lateral spreading, subsidence liquefaction, collapse, or soil blowing. However, part of the project proposes to increase the permitted height of the facility. A slope stability study will be performed and will be further analyzed in the EIR. Impacts from construction of the project are potentially significant.

d) Expansive soil is a fine-grained clay which occurs naturally and is generally found in areas that historically were a floodplain or lake area. Soil types at the site consist of coarse sands, intermixed with fine to medium gravel, and the facility is not located on expansive soil that will create a risk to property or life. There are no impacts.

e) Soils in the project area can support the existing septic tank for disposal of a

small amount of waste water needed for employees. No impacts are expected.



VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL. Would the

project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?

i) Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste? Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold:

The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors:

i. Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; and

ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and

iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and



iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or well being of the majority of the surrounding population.

Responses:

a) Hazardous substances used for the construction of the proposed project typically would require the transport, storage, and use of fuels, and other fluids for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment. This practice is already in place for current operations and the project will not increase the transport of hazardous materials and waste to the project site. Transportation, storage, and disposal/recycling of such products are extensively regulated at the local, state and federal levels. Project impacts are less than significant.

b) As a class III municipal solid waste disposal facility, hazardous waste is not

accepted for disposal at the TSLF. The concentration of the hazardous waste entering the facility is low. Hazardous waste inadvertently entering the landfill is governed and diverted by the KCWMD Hazardous Waste Exclusion Program (HWEP). Minimal amounts of diverted hazardous waste will be transported at infrequent intervals resulting from the exclusion program. Any wastes collected will be transported to the proper facility for disposal as is current practice in landfill operations. This practice will continue. Transport of hazardous waste on public roads conforms with all legal requirements, including those of the Department of Transportation, the California Highway Patrol, and the guidelines of the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). During landfill operations, KCWMD will take steps necessary to prevent threats to human health and to the environment. Safety procedures at the landfill are defined in KCWMDs Operations Procedure Manual, Illness and Injury Prevention Plan, and Emergency Preparedness Plan. Safety procedures will be updated, as appropriate, in the Report of Disposal Site Information and/or Preliminary Closure/Post Closure Maintenance Plan. The nearest fire station is approximately 4 miles from the project, located at 303 N. 10th Street, Taft, CA 93268. The site is fenced and monitored for security reasons. KCWMD will amend all permits necessary to operate or close the landfill. Having these appropriate safety measures already implemented, less than significant impacts are expected to occur.

c) The TSLF is not located within mile of an existing or proposed school. The

Jefferson Elementary School is approximately 3.0 miles south of the project site. The use or transportation of hazardous materials involving the project remains unlikely in the schools surrounding area and no impacts are expected.

d) The TSLF is not on the State list of hazardous sites per Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no impacts are expected.



e) The project is not located in any area regulated by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The project is approximately four miles north of the Taft Airport (Kern County Department of Airports, 2004). The project is, however, located within the vicinity of a military flight pattern zone. Figure 19.08.160 of the 2007 Kern County Zoning Ordinance describes military review requirements for flight patterns that outline height restrictions throughout the county; the limit in the vicinity of the TSLF is not to exceed 200 above ground. The project proposes to increase the permitted maximum elevation to 868 MSL which would not exceed the height limits described in figure 19.08.160; (See Map 7, Pre-Excavation Topography). No impacts will occur.

f) The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impacts will occur.

g) The project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impacts will occur.

h) There are no wildfire hazard conditions in the project area. The site is not identified as being in an urban wild land fire interface area on the map adopted by the Kern County Fire Department. No impacts are expected to schools, airports or from wild land fire.

i) Decomposing waste at the site can potentially attract animals, birds, and

insects seeking food and shelter. The site can also potentially serve as a breeding ground for disease-carrying organisms or other animals from the surrounding area. The facility operates in compliance with the USEPA (via the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D (RCRA, Subtitle D)), and the CIWMB (via Title 27 CCR, Section 20680 et.seq.) as a sanitary landfill and has an active vector monitoring and suppression program. Operation features such as alternative daily cover and intermediate cover are in place for ongoing disposal operations at the landfill to reduce potential impacts due to vector activity below a level of significance. Vectors have not been a problem, and are not expected to become a problem in the future. Impacts are less than significant.



VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alternation of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on site or off site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which

would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Responses:

a) Groundwater beneath the landfill is monitored in accordance with Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 5-01-160, issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board- Central Valley Region (RWQCB) on June 14, 2001. Groundwater monitoring is conducted to evaluate the performance of facility design and operation and to identify threats to human



health and the environment. The first monitoring well was installed in 1988 and monitoring was initiated in 1991 with the installation of two monitoring wells during the implementation of a Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT). Two additional monitoring wells were installed during a Supplemental SWAT in 1995, followed by the installation of two more in 1996. Five of the monitoring wells are generally down gradient of the waste management unit, one is cross-gradient, and one is up gradient. Based on the data collected and analysis presented, in the 2001 WDRs, the RWQCB concluded, there has been no measurably significant evidence of a release to groundwater of waste constituents. However, beginning in 2007, one volatile organic compound has been detected in samples from one groundwater monitoring well, indicating a release from the landfill to groundwater. KCWMD will perform the necessary analysis per the requirements of Title 27 Section 21750(a) that assesses how ground and surface water could affect the Landfill Unit and how the Unit could affect the beneficial uses of groundwater. KCWMD files semi-annual and annual reports with the RWQCB regarding groundwater conditions. Further analysis will be provided in the EIR as impacts are potentially significant.

b) The TSLF lies in the Taft Hydrologic Area (No. 557.20). The West Kern Water

District supplies domestic and industrial water to a 250 square mile area that largely overlaps the Taft Hydrologic Area and includes Midway and Buena Vista Valleys, Buena Vista Hills, the cities of Taft and Maricopa, and the communities Ford City and Derby Acres. The water is sourced from groundwater wells in the Tupman area approximately 8 miles to the northeast, and from State Water Project deliveries. There are no other known alternative water supplies. The project will use groundwater primarily for fugitive dust control and soil compaction. Impacts from groundwater usage during this project are potentially significant and a water supply analysis shall be included in the EIR.

c) The TSLF lies in the Tulare Sub-region of the Central Valley Groundwater

Province. Natural surface water near the landfill is essentially limited to two intermittent streams; Buena Vista Creek and Broad Creek, which lie approximately 1 mile north and south of the landfill, respectively. These drainages flow only in response to significant rainfall. Runoff generated by rainstorm events is directed around the landfill, and internal drainage is directed by a drainage swale and berms to designated collection points. Landfill construction is conducted according to lift development plans which establish grades and slopes to maintain positive drainage. It is not known whether or not the project will substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site. Further analysis will be provided in the EIR as impacts are potentially significant.

d) The TSLF utilizes a drainage sump that is adjacent to the landfill and an

inactive borrow pit functions as a sump basin in the north central area of the landfill. While landfill construction is conducted according to lift development



plans which establish grades and slopes to maintain positive drainage, it is not known whether or not the project will substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site. Further analysis will be provided in the EIR as impacts are potentially significant.

e) The KCWMD maintains "receive and discharge" standards to treat storm water

in a manner which will not significantly affect downstream conditions. The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), permit number 5F15S013399, contains the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the TSLF. This SWPPP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Water Quality Order No. 97-03 for discharge of storm water associated with industrial activities issued by the California State Water Resources Control Board; no impacts are expected to occur.

f) The project proposes to vertically and horizontally expand the waste footprint

of the TSLF. To avoid degradation of water quality, a Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved liner will be installed beneath the entire horizontal expansion area. The landfill is a Class III municipal solid waste sanitary landfill, permitted to operate under the provisions of Title 27 California Code of Regulations. Class III municipal disposal facilities are not permitted to accept hazardous wastes or designated wastes for disposal. Groundwater beneath the landfill is of very poor quality and appears to be hydrologically connected to saturated zones used for disposal of oil field brines. Migration of vapor or liquid phase contaminants from the shallow refuse fill to the groundwater at the TSLF is not likely because of the vertical extent and lithologic makeup of the vadose zone beneath the landfill. Additionally, the arid climate and high evapotranspiration rates in the region preclude the generation of significant amounts of leachate at the TSLF. To reach the water table, the limited leachate or liquid contaminants and vapors must migrate through 400 feet of immature (clayey) sediments, essentially halting any potential migration from waste to water. However, it is believed that landfill gas is the source of recent detections of an organic compound found in one monitoring well. Gas could more easily migrate through the existing vadose zone. Further analysis will be provided in the EIR as impacts are potentially significant. Additionally, groundwater monitoring is conducted to evaluate the performance of facility design and operation and to identify threats to human health and the environment. Groundwater monitoring reports are sent semi-annually to the RWQCB, fulfilling WDR Order No. 5-01-160. KCWMD has performed the necessary analysis per the requirements of Title 27 Section 21750(a) that assesses how ground and surface water could affect the landfill unit and how the unit could affect the beneficial uses of groundwater. No impacts are expected.



g) The proposed project does not include housing. No impacts will occur.

h) The proposed project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard, nor is it designated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as a high risk area. No impacts will occur.

i) The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving flooding. No levees or dams are in the project area. The project would not add additional people or structures.

j) Site conditions at the TSLF are not conducive to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is expected to occur.



IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING


Impact


With Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No

Impact

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Date post:	17-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamminh
View:	222 times
Download:	4 times

Taft Sanitary Landfill Draft EIR - Kern County, California · 2700 “M” Street, Suite 500...

Documents