WASTE COLLECTION, PROCESSING, AND DISPOSAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA

Transcription

1 Agenda Item No. 5a Attachment C WASTE COLLECTION, PROCESSING, AND DISPOSAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration Prepared for April, 2014 Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority

2

3 WASTE COLLECTION, PROCESSING, AND DISPOSAL SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY SERVICE AREA Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration Prepared for April, 2014 Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority 350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Suite 300 Oakland, CA Los Angeles Orlando Palm Springs Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Santa Cruz Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills D130379

4 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Waste Collection, Processing, and Disposal Service Agreements for the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Service Area Page 1. Introduction Project Description 2-1 Introduction 2-1 Background 2-3 Project Objectives 2-5 Baseline and Project Environmental Checklist 3-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 3-1 Environmental Checklist 3-2 Aesthetics 3-2 Agricultural and Forest Resources 3-3 Air Quality 3-4 Biological Resources 3-8 Cultural Resources 3-10 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 3-11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3-12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3-15 Hydrology and Water Quality 3-17 Land Use and Land Use Planning 3-19 Mineral Resources 3-20 Noise 3-21 Population and Housing 3-23 Public Services 3-24 Recreation 3-25 Transportation and Traffic 3-26 Utilities and Service Systems 3-29 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3-31 Appendices Appendix AIR A-1 CCCSWA Service Agreements i ESA / D130379

6 Table of Contents Page List of Figures 2-1 Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Service Area Facility Locations 2-4 List of Tables AIR-1 Criteria Pollutant Operational Emissions 3-6 GHG-1 GHG Emissions Estimates 3-14 CCCSWA Service Agreements ii ESA / D130379

7 CHAPTER 1 Introduction The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) is proposing to enter into new contracts (Agreements) with private service providers and a public agency for collection, processing, and disposal of solid waste, recyclable materials, compostable organic materials, and food waste from within the CCCSWA Service Area (Service Area). The Service Area includes the cities of Walnut Creek, Lafayette, and Orinda; the towns of Danville and Moraga; and a portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2). This document is an Initial Study, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The intent of the Initial Study is to determine whether the changes to existing collection, processing, and disposal services that would or could occur under the new Agreements have the potential to result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. This is intended to inform the CCCSWA Board and the public of the environmental consequences of the Board s consideration of a discretionary action to approve the new Agreements. The analysis of environmental impacts is provided in Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist. The changes to existing services that would occur under the new Agreements constitute the Project that is analyzed in the Initial Study. The title of the Project is Waste Collection, Processing, and Disposal Service Agreements for the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Service Area. The Project is thoroughly described in Chapter 2, Project Description. The CEQA Lead Agency for the Project is the CCCSWA. This Initial Study will circulate for public comment for a 30-day period. Any comments should be directed to: Bart Carr, Senior Program Manager Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority 1850 Mount Diablo Blvd., Suite 320 Walnut Creek, CA bart@wastediversion.org CCCSWA Service Agreements 1-1 ESA / D130379

8 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank CCCSWA Service Agreements 1-2 ESA / D130379

9 CHAPTER 2 Project Description Introduction The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority (CCCSWA) is proposing to enter into new contracts (Agreements) for collection, processing, and disposal of solid waste, recyclable materials, compostable organic materials, and commercial food scraps from within the CCCSWA Service Area (Service Area). The Service Area includes the cities of Walnut Creek, Lafayette, and Orinda; the towns of Danville and Moraga; and a portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Figure 2-1). All of the services that will be provided under the new Agreements, or similar services, are currently being performed under existing agreements between the CCCSWA and private and public agency service providers. The new Agreements would commence after the expiration of the existing agreements. Services to be included under the new Agreements include the following: Collection of residential and commercial solid waste, recyclable materials, compostable organic materials (which includes yard waste and food scraps) and commercial food scraps; Delivery of all collected materials, except recyclable materials, to the existing Contra Costa Transfer and Recovery Station (Contra Costa Transfer Station), located in an unincorporated area of the County near Pacheco; Delivery of recyclable materials to Mount Diablo Recycling s existing processing facility in Pittsburg and processing of the collected recyclable materials for market; Transfer of solid waste from Contra Costa Transfer Station to the existing Keller Canyon Landfill, located in an unincorporated area near Pittsburg, where it would be disposed in the existing Class II landfill. Transfer of compostable organic materials from Contra Costa Transfer Station to the existing West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSLF) composting facility, located in an unincorporated area near Richmond, and composting of the material there. Grinding of commercial food scraps at the Contra Costa Transfer Station using the existing permitted food grinder that is permanently located there, and transfer of the ground-up material to the existing East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Wastewater Treatment Plant in Oakland, where the material would be placed in the existing anaerobic digesters for energy generation. CCCSWA Service Agreements 2-1 ESA / D130379

10 WALNUT CREEK CONCORD DANVILLE PITTSBURG SAN RAMON 4 4 CLAYTON BRENTWOOD ANTIOCH ANTIOCH 160 SERVICE AREA OAKLEY 0 2 Miles 12 NOVATO 37 VALLEJO BENICIA MARTINEZ 242 SAN RAFAEL PINOLE HERCULES MARTINEZ PLEASANT HILL CONCORD SAN PABLO PLEASANT LARKSPUR RICHMOND HILL CORTE MADERA EL MILL CERRITO VALLEY 131 TIBURON ALBANY BELVEDERE LAFAYETTE BERKELEY SAUSALITO ORINDA 13 SAN FRANCISCO EMERYVILLE MORAGA 80 PIEDMONT 980 OAKLAND ALAMEDA WALNUT CREEK LAFAYETTE 24 Contra Costa County ORINDA MORAGA PIEDMONT 580 DANVILLE 880 OAKLAND UNINCORPORATED COUNTY 580 SAN RAMON 185 Alameda County SOURCE: ESA Service Area Boundary County Border SAN LEANDRO DUBLIN CCCSWA Service Agreements Initial Study Figure 2-1 Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Service Area

11 2. Project Description The option for additional processing services to increase the amount of materials diverted from landfill disposal. The High Diversion Option could be exercised by the CCCSWA any time after completion of the first year of service under the Agreements, and would include transfer of some materials from the Contra Costa Transfer Station to the existing Newby Island Resource Recovery Park in San Jose (Santa Clara County) for recovery of recyclable and compostable organic materials. The option to deliver recyclable materials to Mount Diablo Recycling s existing corporation yard in Concord, and trans-loading there of materials from collection vehicles to long-haul vehicles for delivery to Mount Diablo Recycling s Pittsburg facility. Other related services, including distribution of collection containers to customers; responding to customer service inquiries; billing services; outreach and publicity regarding services; and maintenance and repair of truck fleets. All of the facilities identified above, and in the remainder of this Project Description, are shown in Figure 2-2. The initial term of the Agreements, if approved, would be for a period of ten to twelve years, with new services anticipated to start on March 1, The Agreements may include an option for the CCCSWA to extend the term of the Agreements for an additional, as yet unspecified, period of time. Background The CCCSWA is a Joint Powers Authority with six member agencies including Contra Costa County, the Towns of Danville and Moraga, and the Cities of Lafayette, Orinda, and Walnut Creek. Within the CCCSWA Service Area, member agencies do not individually have agreements for solid waste, recyclable materials, or compostable organic materials collection or processing and disposal services. The CCCSWA contracts for and manages the provision of all solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable organic materials services within the CCCSWA Service Area. The CCCSWA currently has several agreements that work together to secure all of the collection, transfer, processing, and disposal services needed, including two franchise agreements, two processing agreements, and five non exclusive commercial recycling franchise agreements. The CCCSWA is responsible for developing and implementing programs that enable its member agencies to meet and exceed the State mandated 50% goal of reducing and recycling solid waste. The CCCSWA is also working towards 75% diversion by 2020, a goal adopted by its Board of Directors in The Service Area encompasses a population of approximately 215,000 people. Collection services are provided to approximately 62,400 residential accounts and 2,300 commercial accounts. In Fiscal Year 2012/2013, the two franchised collection contractors in the CCCSWA service area collected 91,627 tons of residential and commercial solid waste, 33,798 tons of residential and commercial recyclable materials, and 55,678 tons of residential organic materials. CCCSWA Service Agreements 2-3 ESA / D130379

12 SOLANO COUNTY VALLEJO NOVATO BENICIA MARTINEZ SAN RAFAEL PITTSBURG RICHMOND SAUSALITO SAN JOAQUIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNTY 7 SAN FRANCISCO LIVERMORE 680 ALAMEDA COUNTY HAYWARD FREMONT PALO ALTO 9 8 MILPITAS SANTA CLARA COUNTY SAN JOSE 1 Contra Costa Transfer & Recovery Station 6 Mt. Diablo Recycling Corporation Yard 2 Keller Canyon Landfill 7 EBMUD 3 Republic Services Corporation Yard 8 Newby Island Resource Recovery Park 4 West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Compostng Facility 9 Zero Waste Energy Development Company 5 Mt Diablo Recycling Center 0 10 Miles Service Area Bondary County Border CCCSWA Service Agreements Initial Study SOURCE: ESA Figure 2-2 Facility Locations 2-4

13 2. Project Description Existing agreements include the following: A franchise agreement with Republic Services (formerly Allied Waste Services), provides for collection, transfer, and disposal of residential and commercial solid waste, and collection and transfer of commercial food waste. Collected materials are taken to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, which is also owned by Republic Services. Waste is transferred into large long-haul trucks, and then taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill for disposal. Keller Canyon Landfill is also owned by Republic Services. A franchise agreement with Valley Waste Management, a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., provides for collection of residential recyclable materials and organic compostable materials, as well as recyclable materials from small businesses. In some parts of the Service Area, residents place food scraps together with yard waste in one container for collection; in other parts of the Service Area only yard waste is collected, without food scraps. These materials are referred to herein as compostable organic materials. The Valley Waste Management franchise agreement also provides for processing of both recyclable materials and compostable organic materials. Recyclable materials are delivered to Pacific Rim Recycling in Benicia or to the Davis Street Resource Recovery Complex and Transfer Station (Davis Street Transfer Station) in San Leandro, which is owned by Waste Management Inc. Approximately 25% of yard waste from the CCCSWA service area is taken directly to the Keller Canyon Landfill in Pittsburg for use as Alternative Daily Cover (ADC). This fraction does not contain food scraps. Compostable organic materials consisting of yard waste mixed with food waste are taken to the Contra Costa Transfer Station or to the Davis Street Transfer Station. Compostable organic materials brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station are transferred and hauled to the WCCSLF Composting Facility, while compostable organic materials taken to the Davis Street Transfer Station are transferred and hauled to the Newby Island Resource Recovery Park Composting Facility (owned by Republic Services) in San Jose (Santa Clara County). A processing contract with Pacific Rim Recycling, a privately owned business, for processing recyclables collected by Valley Waste Management from residents and small businesses from the member agencies located along the Highway 680 corridor (Walnut Creek, Danville, and portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County). A processing contract with EBMUD for processing commercial food waste collected by Republic Services. Food waste is brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, where it ground into small-size particles and then transferred to the EBMUD Wastewater Treatment Plant s anaerobic digestion facility in Oakland. The CCCSWA has five non-exclusive franchise agreements for collection of commercial recyclable materials. The agreements for these services expire on February 28, Project Objectives The CCCSWA s objectives for entering into the new Agreements include the following: Providing cost-effective waste reduction, recycling, and solid waste programs to member agencies that work to achieve a 75% diversion goal by 2020 and that create an opportunity to achieve even higher diversion goals. CCCSWA Service Agreements 2-5 ESA / D130379

14 2. Project Description Identifying new technologies and programs and assessing their ability to reach a high diversion goal. Developing a process for phasing in new programs and technologies during the future franchise period to realize diversion benefits while minimizing significant rate increases. Baseline and Project The services provided under the existing agreements constitute the baseline for the environmental review provided in this Initial Study. For the purposes of this environmental review, the differences in services that would be provided under the new Agreements, relative to the services provided under the existing agreements, constitute the Project. The Initial Study examines whether the Project could result in significant environmental impacts. The proposed Agreements would involve the following changes to the services provided under the existing agreements. Together, these changes define the Project examined in this Initial Study. Service Changes Under the Project Changes to collection services under the Project would include the following: Replacement of Existing Refuse, Recycling, Organics, and Food Waste Collection Vehicles with New Vehicles Existing collection vehicles include a combination of truck sizes and types. Several of the existing collection vehicles operated by Republic Services are powered by compressed natural gas (CNG); the remainder are diesel-powered. New collection vehicles would differ from existing vehicles in that most of the vehicles used for collection from residential areas would be larger than the existing vehicles, and, by the end of the first year of services under the new Agreements, all collection vehicles would be powered by CNG. Several of the existing collection vehicles are split body trucks, meaning that more than one type of waste is collected. For example, split body trucks are used for collecting recyclable materials and compostable organic materials in some residential areas. Under the Project, no split body trucks would be used. In those areas that currently are served by split body trucks, there would be an increase of one additional truck servicing the area each week. Service Provider Changes Existing collection services are provided by several different service providers, as described above. Under the Project, all collection services would be provided by Republic Services. The current practice of issuing non-exclusive franchises for collection of commercial recyclable materials would end, and Republic Services would have an exclusive franchise for collection of these materials. CCCSWA Service Agreements 2-6 ESA / D130379

15 2. Project Description Route Changes The routes that collection vehicles take through the service area would in some instances change under the Project. For some residents and businesses, the collection day would change. The change from several collectors of commercial recyclable material to a single collector would result in changes in routes for collection of these materials. New Containers Each household in the Service Area and each business establishment served would receive a new set of containers for storing solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials. The style, size, and color of the new containers may differ from the existing containers. New Customer Service and Information Sources Under the Project, there may be changes to existing customer service phone numbers, web sites, and other contact information. In addition, there would be new materials sent to customers informing them of service changes and other relevant information. Use of Existing Corporation Yard Under the Project, collection vehicles would be parked and maintained at Republic Services existing corporation yard, located at 441 North Buchanan Circle in Pacheco. Processing Changes under the Project Methods and locations for transfer, haul, disposal, and processing of waste materials would in some instances also change under the Project. Transfer, Haul and Disposal Under the Project, there would be no change to the existing locations and methods for transfer, haul, and disposal of solid waste. All collected solid waste would continue to be brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, transferred to large long-haul trucks, then delivered to the Keller Canyon Landfill for disposal. The amount of solid waste collected and disposed may increase over time, not as a consequence of the Project, but because of population growth and changes in consumption and disposal patterns. Compostable Organic Material (Green Materials and Food Scraps) Currently, about 35% of collected compostable organic material is taken to the Davis Street Transfer Station, then transferred and hauled to the Newby Island Resource Recovery Park Composting Facility. About 40% is taken to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, then transferred and hauled to the WCCSLF Composting Facility. The remaining 25%, which consists of yard trimmings only, is taken to the Keller Canyon Landfill, where it is used as alternative daily cover for covering disposed waste. CCCSWA Service Agreements 2-7 ESA / D130379

16 2. Project Description Under the Project, all collected compostable organic material would be taken to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, then transferred and hauled to the WCCSLF Composting Facility where it would be composted. None would be used as alternative daily cover. The amount of compostable organic material collected and processed may increase over time, not as a consequence of the Project, but because of population growth and changes in consumption and disposal patterns. Commercial Food Scraps Food scraps collected from businesses would continue to be brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, ground to reduce particle size and volume, and then transferred and hauled to the anaerobic digester facility within the EBMUD Wastewater Treatment Plant in Oakland, where it would be used for energy generation. 1 There would be no change from the existing processing system. There may, however, be an increase in the amount of food waste collected and processed under the Project. The anticipated increase is from 2,301 tons collected during fiscal year 2012/2013, to an anticipated 3,079 tons per year by the end of the first year that the new Agreements are in effect, due to increased effort on the part of the collection service provider to add new accounts for this service. Recyclable Materials Currently, a portion of the recyclable materials collected under the existing franchise agreement with Valley Waste Management is delivered to Pacific Rim Recycling, and the remainder to the Davis Street Transfer Station. After processing, separated recyclable materials are brought to market. The majority of material, by weight, is shipped to end users through the Port of Oakland. In addition, the CCCSWA currently has five non-exclusive franchise agreements with private service providers for commercial recycling. Recyclable materials collected by these service providers are currently taken to various facilities throughout the region for processing. Under the Project, all recyclable materials would be processed by Mount Diablo Recycling. Mount Diablo Recycling is a subsidiary of Garaventa Enterprises, Inc. Collected recyclable materials would either be taken directly to the existing Mount Diablo Recycling facility on Loveridge Road in Pittsburg, or taken to the existing Garaventa Enterprises corporation yard on Mallard Drive in Concord. If taken to the Mallard Drive facility, recyclable materials would be trans-loaded to long-haul vehicles and taken to the Pittsburg facility for processing. Transloading would take place within an existing warehouse building on the site that was formerly (prior to around 2008) used by Mount Diablo Recycling to receive and process recyclable materials. After processing, recyclable materials would be hauled to market. The amount of recyclable materials collected under the Project is expected to rise sharply from current levels, from 33,798 collected in fiscal year 2012/2013 under the existing agreements, to about 49,330 tons at the end of the first year of service under the new Agreements. Some of this additional tonnage is currently being collected under the five non-exclusive franchise agreements for commercial recycling. Republic Services also intends to market its recycling services to 1 The semi-solid by-product of anaerobic digestion, called digestate may be used as a feedstock for aerobic composting, or it may be used directly as a soil amendment or for landfill alternative daily cover. CCCSWA Service Agreements 2-8 ESA / D130379

17 2. Project Description currently un-served commercial establishments, thus increasing the amount of recyclable materials collected and processed. High Diversion Option Under the Project, the CCCSWA would, at any time after the completion of the first year of service, have the ability to exercise the High Diversion Option. The purpose of the High Diversion Option would be to increase the amount of material diverted from landfill. If exercised, the High Diversion Option would result in a change in the handling of a portion of the solid waste collected. After being brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, up to 30,000 tons of solid waste collected from businesses and apartment buildings would be transferred and hauled to the Newby Island Resource Recovery Park. There, the waste would be separated into a wet fraction that is high in organic material, and a dry fraction that is high in recyclable material. The dry fraction would be further processed to recover recyclable materials. The wet fraction would be hauled to the Zero Waste Energy Development Company s anaerobic digestion facility, located in San Jose (Santa Clara County), where it would be used for energy generation. An estimated 70% or more of materials would be recovered. The unrecoverable residue would be disposed at the Newby Island Landfill. Existing Facilities All of the facilities that would be used under the Project are existing facilities. Under the Project, no new facilities would be built, expanded, or altered as a consequence of the new Agreements. Several of these facilities, including the Contra Costa Transfer Station, the Mount Diablo Recycling facility in Pittsburg, the Keller Canyon Landfill, the Newby Island Resource Recovery Park and Landfill, and the WCCSL Composting Facility, operate under Solid Waste Facility Permits issued by the Local Enforcement Agency and the California Department Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The Garaventa Enterprises corporation yard and the Republic Services corporation yard operate under local land use permits or land use regulations and are not currently required to have Solid Waste Facility Permits. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The CCCSWA service area encompasses much of the central portion of Contra Costa County, including portions of unincorporated central Contra Costa County, the Towns of Danville and Moraga, and the Cities of Lafayette, Orinda, and Walnut Creek. The various facilities that would or could be used under the Project are located outside of the service area, both within and outside of Contra Costa County. Required Approvals The only required approvals for the Project are the approvals of the new Agreements by the CCCSWA Board of Directors. CCCSWA Service Agreements 2-9 ESA / D130379

18

19 CHAPTER 3 Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The proposed Project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils and Seismicity Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial study: 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 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) 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, no further environmental documentation is required. Signature Ken Etherington Printed Name April 1, 2014 Date CCCSWA For CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-1 ESA / D130379

20 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No 1. 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 daytime or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a, b, c, and d) The Project would involve the continuation of existing collection services and use of existing facilities with only minor changes. None of these changes would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, substantially damage scenic resources, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Service Area or the sites on or around any of the facilities, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. Therefore, the Project would have No on aesthetics. CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-2 ESA / D130379

21 Agricultural and Forest Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Discussion a, b, c, d and e) The Project would involve continuation of existing collection services and use of existing transfer, processing, and disposal facilities. These facilities do not contain agricultural or forest resources. Collection services would use existing road networks to service existing households and businesses within urban areas and would not affect agricultural or forest resources. The Project would not directly or indirectly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, would not affect forest land or timberland in any way or result in the loss of forestland, and would not conflict with an existing Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would have No on agricultural and forest resources. CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-3 ESA / D130379

22 Air Quality Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No 3. 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 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 non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion a) The Project lies within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the state (PM10 and PM2.5) and federal (PM2.5) particulate matter standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District s (BAAQMD s) Final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the applicable Clean Air Plan that has been prepared to address ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment issues (BAAQMD, 2010). The 2010 CAP is a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the state one-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The control strategy includes stationary-source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 CAP also represents the Bay Area s most recent triennial assessment of the region s strategy to attain the state one-hour ozone standard. BAAQMD s 2012 Air Quality Guidelines state that if approval of a Project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP. As indicated in the following analysis of air quality issues b) through e), the Project would CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-4 ESA / D130379

23 not result in a significant and unavoidable air quality impact. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the 2010 CAP and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Project would have No with regard to conflicting with or obstructing the applicable air quality plan. b) The BAAQMD Revised Draft Justification Report on CEQA Thresholds of Significance identifies significance thresholds for construction and operational criteria emissions. The Project would not involve any construction activities or result in construction emissions. Consequently, this analysis focuses on operational emissions. BAAQMD s operational emission thresholds are 54 pounds per day and 10 tons per year for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and small particulate matter 2.5 microns and smaller (PM2.5) and 82 pounds per day and 15 tons per year for particulate matter 10 microns and smaller (PM10). These levels are based on the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review (NSR) Program and BAAQMD s Regulation 2, Rule 2 for new or modified sources and represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 2009). The Project s operational emissions were analyzed using estimates of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle idling hours by vehicle type (Class 6 and 7 CNG-powered vehicles) for collection vehicles traveling from their point of origin to the service area, on their collection route, to the transfer station or processing facility, and back to their point of origin; and for diesel-powered long-haul vehicles traveling between the transfer station and the disposal or processing facility. Emissions were estimated by multiplying VMT and idling by emission factors (grams/vmt and grams per vehicle idle-hour) obtained from several sources (California Air Resources Board, 2013; CARB, 2010; McCormick, RL, Graboski, MS, Allerman, TL, and J. Yanowitz, 2000). The analysis assumed full implementation of the High Diversion Option, since it would involve more VMT to haul materials to the Newby Island Resource Recovery Park. Spreadsheets developed for the analysis are included in Appendix AIR. As shown in Table AIR-1, the Project would result in a net decrease in operational criteria pollutant emissions for NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Emissions would increase slightly for ROG, but the daily and annual increase in ROG emissions would be less than BAAQMD s significance thresholds. The changes in the level of pollutants emitted is due primarily to the change in fuel type: under baseline conditions the collection fleet is a mixture of CNG and diesel powered trucks; under the Project, the entire collection fleet would be powered by CNG. Compared to diesel engines of the same class, CNG engines have lower emission levels for all pollutants, except ROG. BAAQMD has developed its thresholds as a means to determine whether a project would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Since the Project s operational emissions would be less than BAAQMD s daily and annual thresholds, the Project s air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-5 ESA / D130379

24 TABLE AIR 1 CRITERIA POLLUTANT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Whole System Collection, Processing, Transfer, Haul Project Emissions Baseline Emissions Project Emissions Minus Baseline BAAQMD Significance Threshold Exceed BAAQMD Thresholds? ROG ppd No Nox ppd (150.0) 54 No Exhaust PM10 ppd (1.1) 82 No Exhaust PM2.5 ppd (1.0) 54 No ROG tpy No Nox tpy (27.9) 10 No Exhaust PM10 tpy (0.2) 15 No Exhaust PM2.5 tpy (0.2) 10 No NOTES: ppd = pounds per day, tpy = tons per year SOURCE: ESA, Appendix AIR c) Project-level thresholds of significance set by the BAAQMD reflect the level at which a project s individual contribution would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing air quality impact. Therefore, if a project s impacts are found to be significant, the project would also be making a significant contribution to a cumulative impact. If a project s individual impact is less than significant, the contribution to a cumulative impact would also be less than significant. As described above, the Project would not involve construction, and operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in a significant contribution to a cumulative air quality impact, and this would be a less than significant impact. d) Diesel powered collection vehicles generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. DPM emissions have been linked to carcinogenic and acute health risks. The Project would replace existing diesel powered collection vehicles with vehicles powered by CNG. Since vehicles powered by CNG do not emit DPM, the Project would reduce health risks faced by individuals working or living along the routes taken by collection vehicles. This would be a beneficial impact of the Project. In addition to DPM, BAAQMD also uses PM2.5 emissions and concentrations as an indicator of a project s potential to increase health risks. PM2.5 emissions would be reduced along the collection vehicle routes because PM2.5 emissions are lower for CNG vehicles as compared to diesel vehicles. The reduction in PM2.5 emissions along the collection routes constitutes a beneficial impact of the Project. Although the Project would eliminate DPM emissions and reduce PM2.5 emissions along collection routes, DPM and PM2.5 emissions would increase slightly along some of the Project s long-haul routes. This would occur because the Project would increase VMT for long-haul vehicles. As a result, hauling emissions would increase by 0.1 tons of DPM and CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-6 ESA / D130379

25 PM2.5 per year. These emission increases are small, would be spread out over many miles along several of the long-haul routes, and would have a negligible effect on ambient DPM and PM2.5 concentrations. Consequently, the increase in VMTs for long-haul vehicles would not result in a significant increase in health risk for residents and other sensitive receptors. Because the Project would result in a decrease in DPM and PM2.5 emissions along collection routes, and only a very slight increase along long-haul routes, this would be a less than significant impact. e) The types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities and transfer stations. All of the facilities that would receive wastes under the Project are existing facilities. Solid waste would continue to be brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station and disposed at the Keller Canyon Landfill, as is currently being done, or the Newby Island Resource Recovery Park, which also currently receives wastes from the CCCSWA Service Area. Yard waste mixed with food waste would be brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station and then transferred to the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill Composting Facility, as is currently being done. Commercial food scraps collected from businesses would continue to be brought to the Contra Costa Transfer Station, processed, and then hauled to the anaerobic digestion facility within the EBMUD Wastewater Treatment Plant in Oakland, where it would be used for energy generation. The Contra Costa Transfer Station is already permitted to receive, process, and ship separately-collected commerical food scraps, and the EBMUD plant already receives this material. In short, transport, transfer, processing, and disposal of potentially odor-causing wastes will continue under the Project using the same facilities as are currently being used. Consequently, odor impacts under the Project would be about the same as the baseline, and this impact would be less than significant. References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Revised Draft Options and Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds of Significance. October, BAAQMD, Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Available: Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx California Air Resources Board (March). Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects for Evaluating Motor Vehicle Registration Fee Projects and CMAQ Projects. Emission Factor Tables. California Air Resources Board EMAC2011 Updated January Available: McCormick, R.L., Graboski, M.S., Alleman, T.L., and J. Janowitz Idling emissions from heavy-duty diesel and natural gas vehicles at high altitude. In Journal of Air and Waste Management Association, Nov;50(11): CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-7 ESA / D130379

26 Biological Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No 4. 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? Discussion a) The Project involves the continuation of existing services and facilities, with no expansion or change that would directly or indirectly affect any special status species. Therefore, the Project would have No on special status species. b) Because the Project involves no physical change to land or structures, there is no potential for the Project to directly or indirectly remove, damage, or disturb any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. The Project would therefore have No on riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities. c) Because the Project involves no physical change to land or structures, the Project has no potential to directly or indirectly fill, damage, or disturb any federally protected wetlands. The Project would therefore have No on federally protected wetlands. d) The continuation of existing collection services and use of existing processing and disposal facilities would result in no change to the physical environment. Therefore, the CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-8 ESA / D130379

27 Project has no potential to interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or to impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the Project would have No on fish or wildlife movement or migration or use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) The Project involves no physical change to land or structures, and therefore has no potential to remove, disturb, or destroy biological resources, such as protected trees. The Project would therefore not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and would have No of this kind. f) The Project involves no physical change to land or structures, and therefore would not result in any physical changes to any areas where a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan is in effect. The Project therefore would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and would have No of this kind. CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-9 ESA / D130379

28 Cultural Resources Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? 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? Discussion a, b, c, d) The Project involves no new disturbance of land or existing structures, and therefore the Project does not have the potential to result in change to any known historical, archeological, or paleontological resources or human remains. The Project does not involve disturbance of previously undisturbed ground and therefore does not have the potential for accidental discovery and disturbance or damage to unknown historical, archeological, or paleontological resources or human remains. The Project would therefore have No on cultural resources. CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-10 ESA / D130379

29 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No 6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 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) iii) iv) Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 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? Discussion a, b, c, d, e) The Project would result in no physical changes to land and involves no alteration to the use of existing facilities. The Project therefore does not have the potential to increase exposure to risk of damage or death related to geologic hazards. Similarly, the because the Project involves no physical changes to land, it does not have the potential to result in increased erosion or topsoil loss. Therefore, the Project would have No with regard to geology, soils, and seismicity. CCCSWA Service Agreements 3-11 ESA / D130379