HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 18 - Written Comment - RD Construction (Appellant)
July 12, 2022
Via E-mail
Timothy J. Sheridan, Mayor
Natasha Johnson, Mayor Pro-Tem
Bob Magee, Council Member
Steve Manos, Council Member
Brian Tisdale, Council Member
City Council
Lake Elsinore City Hall
130 South Main St.
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
tsheridan@lake-elsinore.org
njohnson@lake-elsinore.org
rmagee@lake-elsinore.org
smanos@lake-elsinore.org
btisdale@lake-elsinore.org
cityhall@lake-elsinore.org
John Gray, Chair
Matthew Dobler, Vice Chair
Michael Carroll, Commissioner
Rendell Klaarenbeek, Commissioner
Jodi Peters, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Lake Elsinore
183 N. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
planninginformation@lake-elsinore.org
Candice Alvarez, City Clerk
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
calvarez@lake-elsinore.org
Kevin Beery, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Lake Elsinore
183 N. Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
kbeery@lake-elsinore.org
Re: Opposition to the CEQA Class 32 (In-Fil Development) Categorical Exemption for
the Planning Application No. 2021-28 (Corydon III Project)
Dear Mayor Sheridan, Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson, Council Members Magee, Manos, and Tisdale,
Honorable Planning Commissioners, Mr. Beery, and Ms. Alvarez:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”) regarding the project known as Planning Application No. 2021-28 (Corydon III),
including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of two industrial buildings
totaling 63,030 square feet located at 32321 Corydon Road in the City of Lake Elsinore, on
APNs 370-080-007, 370-080-006, and 370-080-020 (“Project”).
After reviewing the CEQA Class 32 (In-fill Development) Categorical Exemption (“CE”
or “Exemption”) and Staff Report, we conclude that the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”) cannot
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 2 of 11
rely on the Exemption because the Project will have significant adverse environmental impacts
on air quality and valuable habitat for special-status species on the Project site. As evidenced by
the expert comments submitted by wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and
environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), the Exemption
is inapplicable because (1) the Class 32 exemption does not apply on its face, and (2) the unusual
circumstances exception to the exemption applies. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and curriculum
vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
SWAPE’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and are incorporated
herein by reference in their entirety.
Since the Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to
determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project is a development proposal that requires Design Review approval (IDR
2021-04) to construct two industrial buildings totaling 63,030 square feet and related
improvements, in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2021-06) to establish two
warehouses and an outdoor storage area on 3.04 acres of land within the Action Sports, Tourism,
Commercial & Recreational and Airport Overlay districts of the East Lake Specific Plan. The
proposed development is located on the west side of Corydon Road between Palomar Street and
Cereal Street, more specifically 32321 Corydon Road (APNs: 370-080-007, 370-080-006, 370-
080-020). The project area is bounded by a one-story single-family residence to the south, vacant
land to the west, an outdoor storage yard to the north, and vacant land to the east .
Building One (located in the west portion of site) would be approximately 31 feet in
height and include 21,687 square feet of gross floor area, including approximately 5,600 square
feet of accessory office space. Building Two (located in the east portion of site) would be
approximately 32 feet in height and include 40,817 square feet of gross floor area, including
approximately 10,204 square feet of accessory office. The outdoor storage yard would be located
along the rear of the property and would have a gravel surface. The total building footprint area
would be 47,226 square feet, or 35.6 percent of the lot area. The Project would also include
construction of 79 on-site parking spaces.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a
nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the
project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an
EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th
310, 319-20 [“CBE v. SCAQMD”] [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d
68, 75, 88]; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d
491, 504–505.) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code [“PRC”] § 21068;
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 3 of 11
see also, 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the
CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13
Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the
act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the
reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 [“CBE v. CRA”]).
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 [“Bakersfield Citizens”]; Pocket Protectors v.
City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm
bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes
before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124
Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to
“demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered
the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment
but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.)
An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC §
21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances,
an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement
briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR §
15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant
environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . .
. has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to
dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases
where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v.
San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an
environmental document under CEQA. The mitigated negative declaration must “separately
identify and analyze the significance of the impacts … before proposing mitigation measures
….” (Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658.) A “mitigation
measure” is a measure designed to minimize a project’s significant environmental impacts, (PRC
§ 21002.1(a)), while a “project” is defined as including “the whole of an action, which has a
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).)
Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance
determination. Measures are not technically “mitigation” under CEQA unless they are
incorporated to avoid or minimize “significant” impacts. (PRC § 21100(b)(3).)
To ensure that the project’s potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and
disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth,
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 4 of 11
mitigation measures that are not included in the project’s design should not be treated as part of
the project description. (Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8.) Mischaracterization of a
mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is “significant,” and therefore amounts
to a material error, “when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s
environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.” (Mission Bay Alliance v.
Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.)
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated
negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially
significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on
the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
environment.” (PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130
Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant
effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124
Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland
(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904-05.)
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the
record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary
evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124
Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th
1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental
review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of
exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)
The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard
accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally
followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies
weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance
of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the
lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better
argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal.
CEB 2021). The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair
argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is
de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket
Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 5 of 11
CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s
environmental setting or “baseline.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is
the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts.
(CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent
part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the
vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is
commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental
setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead
Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
(See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25
[“Save Our Peninsula”].) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must
be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted
levels. (Id. at 121-23.)
Lastly, to achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered
structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of
Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 [“Hollywoodland”].) First, if a project falls
into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not
have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. (Id.)
Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the
agency must perform an initial threshold study. (Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a).) If the study indicates
that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant
effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. (Id.; 14 CCR §§
15063(b)(2), 15070.) Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an
EIR is required. (Id.) Here, since the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first
step of the CEQA process applies.
CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of
CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to
CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the
reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ [Citations].” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish &
Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) The determination as to the appropriate scope of a
categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San
Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified
School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 [“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application
of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. [Citations.] Thus, for example, interpreting the
scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this
court.’ [Citations].”].) In addition, there are several exceptions to CEQA’s categorical
exemptions. (See, 14 CCR § 15300.2.)
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 6 of 11
III. ANALYSIS
A. The City Incorrectly Applied CEQA’s Class 32 (In-Fill Development)
Categorical Exemption to the Project and Thus a Full CEQA Analysis Is
Required.
The proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 (in-fill development) categorical
exemption under CEQA because of the Project’s significant environmental impacts. The City
must prepare an Initial Study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review, be it a
mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report.
1. The Class 32 Exemption Does Not Apply on its Face.
The City is relying on the Class 32 (in-fill development) categorical exemption for this
project. The Class 32 exemption provides:
Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the
conditions described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation
and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable
zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site
of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or
threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects
relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services.
(14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].)
One of the key limitations of the Class 32 exemption is that it does not apply if the
Project site has value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, (14 CCR §
15332(c)), or if the project will have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality,
or water quality. (14 CCR § 15332(d).) Here, the exemption cannot apply because the Project
site is considered valuable habitat for numerous special-status species in the area and the Project
will have significant impacts on air quality.
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 7 of 11
i. The Project Site is Valuable Habitat to Special-Status Species,
Precluding Reliance on the Class 32 Exemption.
In support of the Exemption, the staff report assumes that the Project will not have
significant biological impacts because the site is allegedly heavily disturbed. However, even
heavily disturbed sites may provide habitat to special status species. As wildlife biologist Dr.
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., points out, “[j]ust because residences have existed at a site does not
mean the site is devoid of wildlife,” including special-status species. (Ex. A, p. 1.) Dr.
Smallwood’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
According to Dr. Smallwood’s review of the Project site and the readily accessible data
bases of species occurrences, he found “112 species of wildlife with potential to occur at the site,
of which 52 (46%) were seen within 1.5 miles (‘Very close’), 23 (20%) within 1.5 and 3 miles
(‘Nearby’), and 30 (26%) within 3 to 30 miles (‘In region’).” (See, Ex. A, pp. 2-6 & Table 1.)
Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project site, with its large expanses of open space and its
trees, “could readily support nesting by white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk, Nuttall’s woodpecker,
loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler,” and many other special-status species. (Id., p. 2.) Based on
these findings, Dr. Smallwood is “confident that the site provides habitat values to multiple
special-status species of wildlife as well as to many other species of wildlife.” (Id.) However, Dr.
Smallwood’s review of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“MSHCP”) found that the
MSHCP does not cover all special-status species that are likely to use the Project site, including
the Nuttall’s woodpecker and yellow warbler, among others. Thus, with this much potential for
special-status species to use the Project site, the site has value for special-status species, which
precludes reliance on a Class 32 exemption. (14 CCR § 15332(c).)
ii. The Project Will Have Significant Air Quality Impacts, Precluding
Reliance on the Class 32 Exemption.
In support of the Exemption, the City relies on emissions calculated with
CalEEMod.2020.4.0. (Ex. B, p. 4.) This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-
specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is
known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA
requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a
project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod
output files provided in the CalEEMod Air Emission Model Results (“CalEEMod Results”) as
Appendix B to the Staff Report, and found that several model inputs used to generate a project’s
construction and operation emissions were not consistent with information disclosed in the Staff
Report. (Id.) As a result, SWAPE concludes that the Project’s construction and operational
emissions are underestimated. (Id.) Because the Staff Report uses incorrect estimates for
emissions, its air quality analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions. The
particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be corrected in a
subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project. SWAPE’s expert comments and
curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 8 of 11
Specifically, SWAPE found that several values used in the Staff Report and CalEEMod
Results’ air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the Staff
Report or otherwise unjustified (Ex. B, pp. 4-11), including:
1. Failure to Model Potential Cold Storage Requirements. (Ex. B, p. 5.)
2. Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses. (Ex. B, pp. 5-6.)
3. Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Areas. (Ex.
B, pp. 6-7.)
4. Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths. (Ex.
B, pp. 7-9.)
5. Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Value. (Ex. B, pp. 10-11.)
6. Underestimated Amount of Material Import. (Ex. B, p. 11.)
An initial study and mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report is
needed to adequately address the air quality impacts of the proposed Project, and to mitigate
those impacts accordingly.
iii. The Project Will Have a Significant Health Impact as a Result of
Diesel Particulate Emissions into the Air.
SWAPE analyzed the Project’s emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) into the air,
and the resulting impact on human health. To do so, SWAPE prepared a screening-level Health
Risk Assessment (“HRA”) to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of
the Project. (Ex. B, pp. 13-18.) SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential
health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s
construction-related and operational TAC emissions. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading
screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 75
meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and
SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors.
SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately
75 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, while utilizing the
recommended age sensitivity factors, is approximately 60.5 in one million for infants. (Ex. B, p.
17.) Moreover, the excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (i.e. 30 years) for
Project operation and construction is approximately 72.8 in one million. (Id.) The cancer risks to
infants and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million,
thus indicating a significant air quality impact.
Because the Project will have significant air quality impacts, the Class 32 exemption is
inapplicable on its face and cannot be relied on by the City.
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 9 of 11
2. The Unusual Circumstances Exception Precludes Reliance on the Class 32
Exemption.
A categorical exemption is inapplicable “where there is a reasonable possibility that the
activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (14
CCR 15300.2(c).) Here, the Project does not present the same general risk of environmental
impacts as other projects falling under Class 32 exemptions and therefore the exemption cannot
apply.
In Berkeley Hillside, the California Supreme Court explained that there are two ways a
party may invoke the unusual circumstances exception. First, “a party may establish an unusual
circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. That
evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes ‘a reasonable possibility that the activity will
have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.’” (Berkeley Hillside
Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105 [emph. added].) Alternatively,
“[a] party invoking the exception may establish an unusual circumstance without evidence of an
environmental effect, by showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from
others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception
applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that
unusual circumstance.” (Id.)
As discussed above, we have submitted substantial evidence that the Project will have
significant air quality impacts. The fact that these significant impacts will occur constitutes an
unusual circumstance. Precluding the City’s reliance on an exemption.
In addition, the Project will have significant impacts to wildlife residing on or near the
Project site. Dr. Smallwood identified several significant adverse impacts likely to occur to
wildlife as a result of the Project. There is substantial evidence that significant habitat loss will
occur due to the Project, which will further permanently diminish the productive capacity of
nesting birds in the area. (Ex. A, p. 7.) Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project will “deny
California 11,550 birds over the next century due solely to loss of terrestrial habitat.” (Id.)
Because this predicted loss of 115.5 birds per year would be substantial, it qualifies as a
significant adverse impact that is not addressed in the Staff Report.
Another significant adverse impact to wildlife is from project-generated traffic. The
Project’s added road traffic would also “potentially kill many individuals of special-status
species of wildlife, including species that might not occur at the Project site, but which would
occur along the roads that project-generated traffic would travel.” (See, Ex. A, pp. 7-10.) Such
special-status species could potentially include the western pond turtle (Actinemys pallida),
mountain lion (Puma concolor), and American badger (Taxidea taxus), among many others. (Id.,
p. 7.) Dr. Smallwood predicts the Project would likely “cause 475 wildlife fatalities per year,”
with “[o]perations over 100 years … accumulat[ing] 47,500 wildlife fatalities.” (Id., p. 10.)
Based on Dr. Smallwood’s assumptions and calculations, project-generated traffic would cause
substantial, significant adverse impacts to wildlife.
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 10 of 11
Dr. Smallwood also concluded that a fair argument can be made that the substantial
development that has recently occurred in Lake Elsinore has likely contributed to cumulative
impacts to wildlife. (Id.) However, the Staff Report remains silent on how the Project may
contribute to cumulative impacts to wildlife in the area.
Therefore, there is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant wildlife
impacts. The fact that these significant impacts will occur constitutes unusual circumstances,
which further precludes the City’s reliance on an exemption.
Additionally, there is substantial evidence that the Project could have hazards and
hazardous materials impacts as a result of past use of the Project site. In preparing comments,
SWAPE reviewed past imagery from Google Earth and found that the site had previously been
used for automotive storage and disposal of debris. (See, Ex. B, pp. 2-3.) According to SWAPE,
the storage of automobiles and disposal of debris, as shown in the Google Earth image taken on
April 27, 2014, which is included in SWAPE’s comments (id., p. 3), may have resulted in a
release of hazardous substances or petroleum products which would constitute a “recognized
environmental condition” (“REC”). As a result, SWAPE recommends that a Phase I ESA be
prepared. Given the substantial evidence that there may be significant hazards and hazardous
materials impacts as a result of the Project, these potential significant impacts constitute an
unusual circumstance. Thus, precluding the City from relying on an exemption.
Lastly, the Staff Report still contends that VMT will be less than significant because the
Project will allegedly generate 108 vehicle trips per day, while the significance threshold is 110
vehicle trips per day. However, this difference of 2 vehicle trips per day warrants further
analysis, especially given that the Project is for the construction and operation of a warehouse
and will add to the already significant traffic impacts experienced in the City. As such, the
potential significant traffic and VMT impacts of the Project constitute an unusual circumstance,
precluding reliance on an exemption.
//
//
Corydon III Project, Planning Application No. 2021-28
Opposition Comment to Class 32 Categorical Exemption
July 12, 2022
Page 11 of 11
IV. CONCLUSION
The City cannot rely on a Class 32 exemption because the Project does not meet the
terms of the exemption and because the unusual circumstances exception to exemptions applies.
Accordingly, the City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of
environmental review to undertake pursuant to CEQA. Thank you for considering these
comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT A
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Kevin Beery, Associate Planner
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 18 May 2022
RE: Corydon III Planning Application No. 2021-28
Dear Mr. Beery,
I write to comment on the Staff Report prepared in support of a proposed Class-32
CEQA Categorical Exemption regarding the proposed Corydon III Project, which I
understand would add two industrial buildings totaling 63,030 square feet on 3.04 acres
of land at 32321 Corydon Road. Herein I provide comments on the habitat value of the
project site that warrants preparation of an EIR.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D.
degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked for four
years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range
Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection,
interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of
rare and endangered species, and the ecology of invading species. I authored numerous
papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs
Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife
Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I lectured part-time at California
State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier
scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological
Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have
performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years, including at many
proposed project sites. My CV is attached.
HABITAT VALUE OF CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Staff Report purports, “The proposed development site is entirely disturbed does
not contain suitable habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special status plant or
wildlife species. The proposed development site has been previously developed with
three single-family residences.” Just because residences have existed at a site does not
mean the site is devoid of wildlife. Since I began monitoring wildlife at my own home in
2019, I have recorded 67 species of vertebrate wildlife within the bounds of my urban
property. These species included 5 that were non-native species, which is to be expected
of an urban setting, but it also included 13 special-status species such as Swainson’s
hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, white-tailed kite, Nuttall’s woodpecker, willow flycatcher
and yellow warbler. I have surveyed for wildlife at other residential properties, where I
detected 34 species (8 special-status species) in 2.5 hours in Orinda, California, 27
2
species (6 special-status species) in 2.37 hours in Lafayette, California, 26 species and
Monarch butterfly (4 special-status species) in <2 hours in Los Gatos, California, 28
species (8 special-status species) in 8.67 hours in Woodland, California, and 38 species
(5 special-status species) in 3.5 hours in Santa Rosa, California. Many residential
properties provide habitat value to wildlife, including to special-status species of
wildlife.
Even at homes within dense urban settings in Greater Los Angeles, my daughter
detected 33 species of vertebrate wildlife (Smallwood 2021). However, and this goes to
an important point, she found 34% more species and 1.59 times the number of birds at
homes with yards that had been converted to xeric-adapted or native plant species than
at yards with conventional lawns (Smallwood 2021). The conditions at a residential site
can determine the site’s habitat value to wildlife. I have seen the same among sites I
surveyed where commercial or industrial buildings once stood, military operations were
performed, hazardous materials were managed, or where agriculture was practiced.
Most of these previously disturbed sites I visited continued to provide habitat values to
wildlife. A few did not. At a site I recently surveyed in Fontana, California, I detected
only 2 avian species represented by 1 bird each who simply flew over the site. The site
was occupied by an industrial warehouse with landscaping that offered nothing to
vertebrate wildlife, as well as rodent bait stations placed around the building’s
perimeter. The Fontana site effectively suppressed wildlife, but most sites offer some
habitat value to wildlife.
Another important factor that contributes to the habitat values provided by former or
current residential properties is the condition of the surrounding landscape and to what
degree that landscape supports wildlife. In the case of the project site, much of the
surrounding landscape is open space. A lake is nearby, and so is diverse terrain and
various types of ground cover. In fact, my review of readily accessible data bases of
species occurrences revealed 112 species of wildlife with potential to occur at the site, of
which 52 (46%) were seen within 1.5 miles (‘Very close’), 23 (20%) within 1.5 and 3
miles (‘Nearby’), and 30 (26%) within 3 to 30 miles (‘In region’) (Table 1). Given what I
can see of the site using Google Earth imagery, the site with its large expanses of open
space and its trees could readily support nesting by white-tailed kite, Cooper’s hawk,
Nuttall’s woodpecker, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler and many others. I am
confident that the site provides habitat values to multiple special-status species of
wildlife as well as to many other species of wildlife. With this much potential for
special-status species to use the site, a Class 32 Categorial Exclusion per §15332 of Title
14 of the California Code of Regulations would be unwarranted.
3
Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of wildlife species at the project site as indicated by eBird/iNaturalist database records.
‘Very close’ indicates sightings within about 1.5 miles of the site, ‘nearby’ indicates sightings within 1.5 to 3 miles, ‘in
region’ indicates sightings within 3 to 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site.
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
cover
Occurrences
in databases
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby
Crotch’s bumblebee Bombus crotchii FC In region
Western spadefoot Scaphiophis hammondi SSC In region
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes Nearby
Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythrus WL Yes In region
Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes Nearby
Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Yes In region
California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region
Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Very close
Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Nearby
Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Very close
Western pond turtle Emys marorata SSC Yes In region
Black swift Cypeseloides niger BCC Yes Very close
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus BCC Nearby
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL Yes Nearby
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Nearby
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Nearby
Caspian tern Hydropogne caspia WL Very close
4
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
cover
Occurrences
in databases
Black tern Chlidonias niger BCC Nearby
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Nearby
Redhead Aythya americana SSC3 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Yes Nearby
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis BCC, SSC Nearby
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Yes Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus BOP, WL Yes Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Yes Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP Yes Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Yes Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes Very close
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes Very close
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP Yes Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Yes Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Yes Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Yes In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Very close
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC, BOP Yes In region
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus BCC, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
5
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
cover
Occurrences
in databases
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BCC, BOP Yes Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BCC, CFP, BOP Yes Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Yes Nearby
Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii BCC, CE Nearby
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Yes Nearby
Least Bell’ vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE Very close
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Yes Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Yes Very close
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Yes In region
Bank swallow Riparia riparia BLM:S Yes Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica SSC Nearby
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Yes Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorphous cassinii BCC Very close
Lawrence’s goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Yes Very close
Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Nearby
Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Poocetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Very close
Southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens FSC, SSC Yes Very close
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Yes Very close
Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Yes Very close
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor BCC, CT Very close
6
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
cover
Occurrences
in databases
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae BCC, WL Yes In region
Yellow warbler Dendroica petachia BCC, SSC2 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Yes In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus SSC, WBWG:H In range
Pocketed free‐tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M In region
Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG:MH In range
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In region
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In region
Western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In region
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWG:LM In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range
Dulzura pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus femoralis SSC In range
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus f. fallax SSC In range
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC In region
Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT Yes In region
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC In region
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Yes In range
1 FE and FT = federal endangered and threatened, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird Species
of Conservation Concern, CE and CT = California endangered and threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected (FGC Code 3511), SSC
= California species of special concern, SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3,
respectively, and WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5),
and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low, moderate, and high.
7
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Determination of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is not, in and of itself,
an analysis of potential project impacts. An impacts analysis should consider whether
and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic
units of the species, or the whole of a species. In the following, I analyze several types of
impacts likely to result from the project, and none of which were addressed in the Staff
Report.
HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but also in
permanent loss of productive capacity (Smallwood 2015). For example, two study sites
in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and
35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. These
densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre, but they were from study sites that were much
less disturbed than the project site. Assuming the nest density of the project site is only
a third that documented by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), an average nest density of
34.3 multiplied against 0.33 and the project’s 3.04 acres would estimate a capacity of 35
bird nests annually.
After 100 years and assuming an average generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of
both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from the following
formula: {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + ((2 adults/nest × nests/year)
× (number of years ÷ years/generation))}. In the case of this project, and given my
stated assumptions, this formula predicts the project would deny California
11,550 birds over the next century due solely to loss of terrestrial habitat.
This predicted loss of 115.5 birds/year would be substantial, and would qualify as a
significant impact that is not addressed in either the Staff Report. With this much
potential for loss of birds to habitat destruction at the site, a Class 32 Categorial
Exclusion per §15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations would be
unwarranted.
ROAD MORTALITY
The project’s added road traffic would potentially kill many individuals of special-status
species of wildlife, including species that might not occur at the project site, but which
would occur along the roads that project-generated traffic would travel. Such species
would include western pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), mountain lion (Puma concolor)
and American badger (Taxidea taxus), among many others. Many animals that would
be killed by the traffic generated from this project would be located far from the
project’s construction footprint; they would be crossing roads traversed from cars and
trucks originating from or headed toward the project site (Photos 11 through 13). The
project’s impacts on wildlife would reach as far from the project as cars and trucks travel
to or from the project site.
8
Photo 11. A Gambel’s quail
dashes across a road on 3 April
2021. Such road crossings are
usually successful, but too often
prove fatal to the animal. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 12. A mourning dove killed
by vehicle traffic on a California
road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood,
21 June 2020.
Photo 13. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just
east of Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo
taken on 10 November 2018.
Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian,
reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to
be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America,
9
traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada,
3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan
2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100
km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts
can be more intense than nationally.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5 mile
stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study
found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15
months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted
for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and
searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to
find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken
at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right
next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors
were similar to those for carcass persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011).
Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a
wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al.
2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by
traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per
mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the
national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would
translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss
et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is
needed of whether increased traffic on roads within the City of Lake Elsinore and the
County of Riverside would similarly result in intense local impacts on wildlife.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife
A basis for predicting wildlife mortality can be found in the prediction of annual vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). The Staff Report did not report any prediction of VMT, but it did
predict an average daily trip rate of 108. Assuming 22 miles per trip would generate an
annual VMT of 867,204.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality
can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although despite
the nearness of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study to the project site, it would be
helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at
additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an
estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County.
Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was
composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels,
desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3%
amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged
frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender
salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also
skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species).
10
During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so
the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars
and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per
12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the
annual VMT predicted above, I predict the project would cause 475 wildlife fatalities per
year. Operations over 100 years would accumulate 47,500 wildlife fatalities.
It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass
removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates
I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts.
Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would
cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. With this much potential for traffic
mortality caused by the project, a Class 32 Categorial Exclusion per §15332 of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations would be unwarranted.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The Staff Report is silent regarding proposed project’s potential contribution to
cumulative impacts to wildlife. Substantial development has recently occurred in Lake
Elsinore, likely contributing to cumulative impacts to wildlife. In the meantime, it was
learned that North America has lost 29% of its total bird abundance over the past 50
years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an
EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts
to wildlife.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle
collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report
Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, California.
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
11
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello,
California.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision
Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife
movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
Martinez, California.
Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.
Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North
American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How Long Do the Dead Survive on the
Road? Carcass Persistence Probability and Implications for Road-Kill Monitoring
Surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a
ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, N. L. 2021. The influence of native plants on urban wildlife in southern
California residential yards. M.S. Thesis. California State University, Los Angeles.
Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead
shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson
Bulletin 61:36-47.
EXHIBIT B
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
May 27, 2022
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Cordon III Warehouse Project
Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the November 2021 Staff Report for the Cordon III Warehouse Project (“Project”)
located in the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 63,030-square-feet (“SF”)
of warehouse space, including 15,804-SF of office space, as well as 79 parking spaces on the 3.04-acre
site.
Our review concludes that the Staff Report fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards and
hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result of our findings, the
proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and 14 Cal. Code of Regs. 1500 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”) and,
therefore, a full CEQA analysis must be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential
hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the Project
may have on the environment.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was not prepared in support of the Exemption Checklist
and therefore the potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts was inadequately evaluated. A
CEQA document that includes a Phase I ESA is necessary to determine if conditions exist at the Project
site which may be significant and require mitigation.
The preparation of a Phase I ESA is a common practice in CEQA matters to aid in the disclosure of
hazardous materials impacts that may pose a risk to the public, workers, or the environment, and which
2
may require further investigation through the conduct of a Phase II ESA. Standards for performing a
Phase I ESA have been established by the U.S. EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials
Standards (ASTM).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions indicative of releases of hazardous
substances and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency
databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and
• recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.
Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”) and
recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a
past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into
structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs
are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and
groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to
reduce exposure potential to the public.
The preparation of a Phase I ESA for the Project site is especially needed because of past use of the
Project site. Imagery from Google Earth evaluated for the preparation of these comments show the
Project site to have been used for automotive storage and disposal of debris. An example of these past
uses in shown in the Google Earth image below, taken on April 27, 2014.
1 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.” ASTM
International, December 2021, available at: http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm.
3
The storage of automobiles and disposal of debris, as shown in this and other images available at Google
Earth, may have resulted in a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products which would
constitute a REC.
To provide for adequate disclosure of hazards and hazardous materials impacts, a Phase I ESA is
necessary for inclusion in a CEQA document to evaluate RECs at the Project site. The Phase I ESA should
target the potential for a release to have occurred from past use for automotive storage and debris
disposal. If a REC is identified, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for potential contaminants in
soil, including petroleum compounds. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening
levels, including California Department of Toxics Substances Control recommended screening levels 2,
should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control.
Air Quality Incorrect Reliance on Class 32 Categorical Exemption
The Staff Report claims that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15332,
stating:
2 HERO HHRA Note Number: 3, DTSC-modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs).” California Department Of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) & Human And Ecological Risk Office (HERO), June 2020, available at:
https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June-2020-Revised-A.pdf.
4
“The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§§21000 et seq.: “CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. As documented in the attached
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Checklist (Exhibit H), the project is consistent with the applicable
General Plan designation and policies as well as zoning designations and regulations. The project
is located within the City’s boundaries on a site less than five acres surrounded by urban uses,
the development site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
Project approval will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or
water quality, and the proposed development is adequately served by all required utilities and
public services” (p. 5).
As demonstrated above, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15332, a project can only qualify for a Class 32
Categorical Exemption if approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to
traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The Staff Report claims that the Project would result in less-
than-significant air quality impacts. However, this claim is unsubstantiated and the Project’s air quality
analysis is insufficient for the following four reasons:
(1) The Staff Report relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model;
(2) The Staff Report fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts; and
(3) SWAPE’s screening-level health risk assessment indicates a potentially significant health risk
impact.
1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Air Model
The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Study’s (“AQ & GHG Study”) air quality analysis relies on
emissions calculated with the California Emissions Estimator (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 17).3
CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use
type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project
type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input
project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes
be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's
construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output
files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant
emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the
values selected.
When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the CalEEMod Air Emission Model
Results (“CalEEMod Results”) as Appendix B to the Staff Report, we found that several model inputs
were not consistent with information disclosed in the Staff Report. As a result, the Project’s construction
and operational emissions are underestimated. A full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include an
3 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available
at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
5
updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of
the Project will have on local and regional air quality.
Failure to Model Potential Cold Storage Requirements
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Corydon III Warehouse Buildings” model
includes the entirety of the proposed warehouse space as unrefrigerated (see excerpt below) (Appendix
B, pp. 43, 75, 100).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the model fails to include any refrigerated warehouse land use
space. However, this is incorrect, as the Staff Report fails to specify the Project’s intended future tenants
or whether the proposed warehouse would include cold storage uses. As such, future tenants of the
proposed warehouse may require cold storage for operation. Therefore, as refrigerated warehouse
space is the most energy-intensive, the Project should have included all of the proposed warehouse
space as cold storage in order to conduct the most conservative analysis.
This presents an issue, as refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas
(“GHG”) emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for three reasons. First, warehouses
equipped with cold storage (refrigerators and freezers, for example) are known to consume more
energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage.4 Second, warehouses equipped with cold
storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known consume more fuel and idle longer than
unrefrigerated hauling trucks in order to keep their contents cold.5 Third, according to an October 2016
Institute of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”) report entitled High-Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip
Generation Analysis, cold storage warehouses result in greater trip rates when compared to transload &
short-term storage warehouses.6 Furthermore, as stated by the California Supreme Court, CEQA was
“intended to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the
environment.”7 As such, the warehouse land use should have been modeled as refrigerated space in
order account for the additional emissions that refrigeration requirements may generate.
Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses
According to the Staff Report:
4 Managing Energy Costs in Warehouses, Business Energy Advisor, available at:
http://bizenergyadvisor.com/warehouses.
5 “Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks.” Argonne National Laboratory, available at:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/373.pdf, p. 8.
6 “HIGH-CUBE WAREHOUSE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS.” ITE, October 2016, available at:
https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=a3e6679a%2De3a8%2Dbf38%2D7f29%2D2961becdd498, p. 13.
7 Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, Supreme Court of California, available at:
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/friends-mammoth-v-board-supervisors-32943.
6
“Building One (located in west portion of site) would be approximately 31 feet in height and
include 21,687 square feet of gross floor area, including approximately 5,600 square feet of
accessory office space. Building Two (located in east portion of site) would be approximately 32
feet in height and include 40,817 square feet of gross floor area, including approximately 10,204
square feet of accessory office” (p. 2).
As such, the model should have included 15,803-SF of cumulative office space. However, review of the
CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Corydon III Warehouse Buildings” model includes all
62,544-SF as “Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail” (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 43, 75, 100).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the model fails to distinguish between the proposed warehouse
and office space. This inconsistency presents an issue, as CalEEMod includes 63 different land use types
that are each assigned a distinctive set of energy usage emission factors.8 Thus, by failing to include all
proposed land use types, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and
operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Areas
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Corydon III Warehouse Buildings” model
includes several changes to the default architectural and area coating areas (see excerpt below)
Appendix B, pp. 44, 76, 101).
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be
justified.9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justifications
provided for these changes is:
• “Coatings will comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. 10% of building exterior and 20% of interior
are assumed to be painted;” and
• “Assume only 10% of building exterior is painted and 20% of building interior” (Appendix B,
pp. 43, 75, 100).
8 “Appendix D – Default Data Tables” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), June 2021,
available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. D-305.
9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
7
However, these justifications are unsubstantiated for two reasons.
First, the Staff Report and associated documents fail to mention or justify the percentages of the
proposed building exterior and interior to be painted. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod
User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-
specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial
evidence as required by CEQA”.10
Here, until the Staff Report provides substantial evidence to support the revised architectural and area
coating areas, we cannot verify that only 10% of building exterior and 20% of building interior is an
accurate representation of the areas to be painted.
Second, we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised architectural coating emission factors based on
SCAQMD Rule 1113 alone. The SCAQMD Rule 1113 Table of Standards provides the required VOC limits
(grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 57 different coating categories.11 The VOC limits for each coating
varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a maximum value of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that
SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates the reductions to the default coating values without more information
regarding what category of coating will be used. As the Staff Report and associated documents fail to
explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating, we are unable to verify the revised emission
factors assumed in the model.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses area coating emission factors to
calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.12 Thus,
by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default nonresidential exterior and interior area coating
emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational ROG/VOC emissions and
should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Corydon III Warehouse Buildings” model
includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below)
(Appendix B, pp. 44, 76, 101).
10 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 12.
11 SCAQMD Rule 1113 Advisory Notice.” SCAQMD, February 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf?sfvrsn=24, p. 1113-1114, Table of
Standards 1.
12 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 36, 42.
8
As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below)
(Appendix B, pp. 47, 48, 79, 104).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the demolition phase is decreased by 25%, from the default value
of 20 to 15 days; the site preparation phase is increased by 233%, from the default value of 3 to 10 days;
the grading phase is increased by 233%, from the default value of 6 to 20 days; the building construction
phase is decreased 28%, from the default value of 220 to 159 days; and the paving and architectural
coating phases are increased by 50%, from their default values of 10 to 15 days. As previously
mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.13 According
to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes
is:
“Sub-phase construction schedule was approximated by RD Construction” (Appendix B, pp. 43,
75, 100).
Furthermore, regarding the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, the AQ & GHG Study states:
“Construction is anticipated to begin in February 2022, with completion by December 2022” (AQ
& GHG Study, p. 18).
However, these justifications remain insufficient for two reasons.
13 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
9
First, the Staff Report and associated documents fail to provide a source for the approximated
construction schedule or explain how the individual construction phase lengths were calculated. As
such, we cannot verify the revised construction phase lengths are accurate.
Second, while the AQ & GHG Study indicates the total construction duration, the AQ & GHG Study fails
to mention or justify the individual construction phase lengths. This is incorrect, as according to the
CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-
specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial
evidence as required by CEQA.” 14
Here, as the AQ & GHG Study only justifies the total construction duration of 11 months, the AQ & GHG
Study fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised individual construction phase lengths.
As such, we cannot verify the changes.
These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread
out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s
Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).15
Thus, by disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths
without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the
construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As such, there will be less construction
activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. As a result, the model
may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should
not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
14 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13-14.
15 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.
10
Unsubstantiated Reduction to Acres of Grading Value
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Corydon III Warehouse Buildings” model
includes several reductions to the default acres of grading values (see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp.
44, 76, 101).
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be
justified.16 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification
provided for these changes is:
“Total site acreage for grading is approx. 2.37 acres, with the remaining 0.67 acres to be
landscape and unpaved yard” (Appendix B, pp. 43, 75, 100).
However, this change remains unsubstantiated as the Staff Report and associated documents fail to
mention or justify the revised acres of grading values. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod
User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or project-
specific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial
evidence as required by CEQA.” 17
Here, as the Staff Report fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised acres of grading
values, we cannot verify the changes. Additionally, the CalEEMod User’s Guide states:
“[T]he dimensions (e.g., length and width) of the grading site have no impact on the calculation,
only the total area to be graded. In order to properly grade a piece of land multiple passes with
equipment may be required. The acres is based on the equipment list and days in grading or site
preparation phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of
equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.”18
As demonstrated above, the acres of grading value is based on construction equipment and the length
of the grading and site preparation phases. Thus, as the acreage of the Project site have no impact on
the acres of grading values, the reductions remain unsupported.
16 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
17 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 13, 14.
18 “Appendix A – Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA),
May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 9.
11
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the acres of grading value to
estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.19 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to
the default acres of grading values, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related
emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Underestimated Amount of Material Import
Regarding the amount of material import required for Project construction, the Staff Report states:
“Site grading plans indicate approximately 609 cubic yards (cy) of fill material, 6,742 cy of fill
material, and 6,133 cy of import material will be necessary to achieve proper grading” (AQ &
GHG Study, pp. 6).
As such, the model should have included 13,484 cubic yards (“cy”) of material import. However, review
of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Corydon III Warehouse Buildings” model includes
only 6,133 cy of material import (Appendix B, pp. 44, 76, 101).
As you can see from the excerpt above, the amount of material import required for Project construction
is underestimated by 7,351 cy in the model.20
This underestimation presents an issue, as material import is used to calculate emissions produced from
material movement, including truck loading and unloading, and additional hauling truck trips.21 Thus, by
failing to include the full amount of material import required for Project construction, the model
underestimates the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine
Project significance.
2) Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The AQ & GHG Study concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact
without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the
health risk impacts associated with the Project construction and operation, the AQ & GHG Study states:
“The proposed Project does not propose specific stationary sources that would generate TACs,
which are not commonly associated with warehouse development projects. If stationary sources
with the potential to emit TACs were to be included as part of the Project, or included at a later
date, those sources would be subject to SCAQMD Rule 1401, and would be subject to New
Source Review requirements.
19 “Appendix A – Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA),
May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 9.
20 Calculated: 13,484 cy – 6,133 cy = 7,351 cy.
21 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 2, 34.
12
Construction-related activities would result in temporary Project-generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site
preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was
identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998. Due to the short-term construction duration, the limited
construction emissions, and the industrial land use surrounding the Project site, there is very
low potential for fugitive dust or DPM to impact sensitive receptors during construction. The
total Project construction DPM emissions are not of a magnitude and duration that could create
significant air toxic risks to the nearest receptors during construction. Compliance with the
SCAQMD rules and regulations would reduce the fugitive dust emissions during Project
construction and associated impacts to sensitive receptors. The proposed Project’s operating
emissions would be negligible and would not have the potential to impact sensitive receptors.
Therefore, the Project’s construction and operation air pollutant emissions would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and would result in a less than
significant impact” (p. 20-21).
As demonstrated above, the AQ & GHG Study concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-
significant construction and operational health risk impact because the lack of stationary pollution
sources, short-term construction duration, and compliance with applicable regulations would not result
in substantial diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions. However, the AQ & GHG Study’s evaluation
of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact
conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.
First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with
CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts
to likely health consequences.”22 This poses a problem, as construction of the Project would produce
DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately
11 months (AQ & GHG Study, p. 18). Furthermore, operation of the Project is expected to generate 110
daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby,
existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (VMT Screening Memo, pp. 3). However, the AQ & GHG
Study fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate
the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making
a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby
receptors, the AQ & GHG Study is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated
emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.
Second, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that warehouse projects prepare a
quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the
organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air
22 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf.
13
district guidelines.23 In February 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. This guidance document describes the
types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all
short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.24 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the
project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed
to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”25
Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month
requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a
quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 11-month construction
period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to
estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).26 While the
AQ & GHG Study fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably
assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the
Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be
evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These
recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be
prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-
generated DPM emissions.
Third, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or
operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the AQ & GHG Study fails to compare the
Project’s excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.27 Thus, in
accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing
receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted.
3) Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts
In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening
level air quality dispersion model.28 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the
OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the
23 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.
24 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
26 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4.
27 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf.
28 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf
14
appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).29, 30 A Level 2
HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind
concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an
unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling
approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to
residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the AQ & GHG Study’s
CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential
exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.31 The AQ & GHG Study’s CalEEMod model
indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 139 pounds of DPM over the 324-day
construction period.32 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate
maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the
variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM
emission rate by the following equation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 139 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 324 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00225 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 324-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed
that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational
DPM for an additional 29.11 years. The AQ & GHG Study’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that
operational activities will generate approximately 3 net pounds of DPM per year throughout
operation.33 Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the
following emission rate for Project operation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 3.4 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸=𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.0000486 g/s. Construction and
operation were simulated as a 3.04-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate
dimensions of 157- by 78-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height
of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of
one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban
29 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
30 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.
31 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
32 See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
33 Existing emissions subtracted from operational emissions.
15
meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution.
The population of Lake Elsinore was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.34
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the
annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour
concentration by 10% in screening procedures.35 According to the AQ & GHG Study the nearest sensitive
receptor is a single-family residence located 30 feet, or 9 meters from the Project site (p. 15). However,
review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 75 meters
from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project
construction is approximately 5.519 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this
single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.5519 µg/m3 for
Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by
AERSCREEN is 0.1191 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour
concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.01191 µg/m3 for Project
operation at the MEIR.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.36 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air
Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-
point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to
account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess
risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the
daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of
time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our
screening-level HRA are as follows:
34 “Lake Elsinore.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0644000.
35 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October
1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf.
36 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-
guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2.
16
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk
Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)37
Age
Sensitivity
Factor38
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home 39
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)40
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to
effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the
cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day
(mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the
following dose algorithm: 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝= 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝× 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day)
A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
37 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and
Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-
assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance
Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
38 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3.
39 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.
40 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.
17
𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴= 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1
ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only)
ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years)
Consistent with the 324-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for
construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), and the first 0.64 years of
the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for
the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.36 years of infantile stage of
life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), and the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). The
results of our calculations are shown in the table below.
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration
(ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.5519 7.51E-06
Construction 0.64 0.5519 5.78E-05
Operation 1.36 0.0119 2.66E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 6.05E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0119 4.31E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0119 4.79E-07
Lifetime 30 7.28E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants,
children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project
construction and operation, are approximately 7.51, 60.5, 4.31, and 0.479 in one million, respectively.
The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 72.8 in one
million. The infant and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus
resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the AQ & GHG
Study.
18
Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on
the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential
link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments
iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and
refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.
EPA, 1992).
In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default
values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier)
of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).
The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening-
level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and
exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.”
As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling
approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project
could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined
health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both
Project construction and operation.
Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The AQ & GHG Study estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”)
emissions of 272 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not
exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (see excerpt below) (p. 32, Table 11).
The AQ & GHG Study continues, stating:
19
“Based on the potential for 15 total employees, the proposed Project would generate 18.1 MT
CO2e per SP in 2023 (272 MT CO2e ÷ 15 employees). The service population estimate is higher
than Lake Elsinore’s city-wide efficiency-based target of 4.4 MT CO2e per service population per
year in the CAP. However, according to the CAP, if projects are consistent with General Plan and
CAP Consistency Checklist, then the project would be consistent with the CAP and the
environmental review pertaining to GHG impacts may be streamlined” (AQ & GHG Study, pp.
33).
As demonstrated above, the Project exceeds the City’s service population efficiency population target of
4.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO2e/SP/year”).
However, the AQ & GHG Study relies upon the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist, CARB Scoping Plan, and
SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS in order to conclude a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 32-35). The AQ &
GHG’s analysis, however, is incorrect for three reasons.
(1) The AQ & GHG Study’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated
air model;
(2) The AQ & GHG Study fails to consider the performance-based standards under CARB’s Scoping
Plan;
(3) The AQ & GHG Study fails to consider the performance-based standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS;
and
(4) The AQ & GHG Study should incorporate project design features as formal mitigation measures.
1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions
As previously stated, the AQ & GHG Study estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG
emissions of 272 MT CO2e/year (p. 32, Table 11). However, the AQ & GHG Study’s quantitative GHG
analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output
files, provided in the CalEEMod Air Emission Model Results as Appendix B to the Staff Report, we found
that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the
AQ & GHG Study. As a result, the model underestimates the Project’s emissions, and the AQ & GHG
Study’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An full
CEQA analysis should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction
and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.
2) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards Under CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan
As previously discussed, the AQ & GHG Study concludes that the Project would be consistent with
CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (p. 32-35). However, this is incorrect, as the AQ & GHG Study
fails to consider performance-based measures proposed by CARB.
i. Passenger & Light Duty VMT Per Capita Benchmarks per SB 375
In reaching the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals, CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan explicitly
cites to SB 375 and the VMT reductions anticipated under the implementation of Sustainable
20
Community Strategies.41 CARB has identified the population and daily VMT from passenger autos and
light-duty vehicles at the state and county level for each year between 2010 to 2050 under a “baseline
scenario” that includes “current projections of VMT included in the existing Regional Transportation
Plans/Sustainable Communities Strategies (RTP/SCSs) adopted by the State’s 18 Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) pursuant to SB 375 as of 2015.”42 By dividing the projected daily VMT by the
population, we calculated the daily VMT per capita for each year at the state and county level for 2010
(baseline year), 2023 (Project operational year), and 2030 (target years under SB 32) (see table below).
2017 Scoping Plan Daily VMT Per Capita
Riverside County State
Year Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita Population LDV VMT Baseline VMT Per Capita
2010 2,196,083 52,385,344.80 23.85 37,335,085 836,463,980.46 22.40
2023 2,613,313 62,311,461.25 23.84 41,659,526 924,184,228.61 22.18
2030 2,857,496 65,276,502.05 22.84 43,939,250 957,178,153.19 21.78
As the AQ & GHG Study fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan
performance-based daily VMT per capita projections, the AQ & GHG Study’s claim that the proposed
Project would not conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan is unsupported. A full CEQA Analysis should
be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to conclude less-
than-significant GHG impacts.
3) Failure to Consider Performance-based Standards under SCAG’s RTP/SCS
As previously discussed, the AQ & GHG Study concludes that the Project would be consistent with
SCAG’s RTP/SCS (p. 32-35). However, the AQ & GHG Study fails to consider whether or not the Project
meets any of the specific performance-based goals underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS and SB 375, such as: i)
per capita GHG emission targets, or ii) daily vehicles miles traveled (“VMT”) per capita benchmarks.
i. SB 375 Per Capita GHG Emission Goals
SB 375 was signed into law in September 2008 to enhance the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by
directing CARB to develop regional 2020 and 2035 GHG emission reduction targets for passenger
vehicles (autos and light-duty trucks). In March 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets requiring a
19 percent decrease in VMT for the SCAG region by 2035. This goal is reflected in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS
Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”), in which the 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR updates the per capita
emissions to 18.8 lbs/day in 2035 (see excerpt below). 43
41 “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.” CARB, November 2017, available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf, p. 25, 98, 101-103.
42 “Supporting Calculations for 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions,” Excel Sheet “Readme.” CARB,
January 2019, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
01/sp_mss_vmt_calculations_jan19_0.xlsx.
43 “Connect SoCal Certified Final Program Environmental Impact Report.” SCAG, May 2020, available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/fpeir_connectsocal_complete.pdf?1607981618, p. 3.8-74.
21
As the AQ & GHG Study fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s per capita emissions,
the AQ & GHG Study’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is
unsupported. An EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and
analysis to conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.
ii. SB 375 RTP/SCS Daily VMT Per Capita Target
Under the SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, daily VMT per capita in the SCAG region should decrease from 23.2
VMT in 2016 to 20.7 VMT by 2045.44 Daily VMT per capita in Riverside County should decrease from 23.0
to 20.6 VMT during that same period.45 Here, however, the AQ & GHG Study fails to consider any of the
above-mentioned performance-based VMT targets. As the AQ & GHG Study fails to evaluate the
Project’s consistency with the SCAG’s performance-based daily VMT per capita projections, the AQ &
GHG Study’s claim that the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s RTP/SCS is unsupported. An
EIR should be prepared for the proposed Project to provide additional information and analysis to
conclude less-than-significant GHG impacts.
4) Project Design Features Should Be Incorporated as Mitigation Measures
As previously stated, the AQ & GHG Study estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG
emissions of 272 MT CO2e/year (p. 32, Table 11). Furthermore, The AQ & GHG Study relies upon the
Project’s consistency with applicable Lake Elsinore Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) measures in order to
conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (see excerpt below) (p. 34-
35, Table 13).
44 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138.
45 “Connect SoCal.” SCAG, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176, pp. 138.
22
23
However, we recommend that the GHG Study incorporate the above-mentioned reduction measures as
formal mitigation measures. According to the AEP CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures:
“While not “mitigation”, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that
address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP).
Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit
process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental
impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a
change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without
understanding the resulting environmental impact.”46
As demonstrated above, reduction measures that are not formally included as mitigation measures may
be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as the above-mentioned measures are not
formally included as mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented,
monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As such, until the reduction measures are included as
mitigation measures, the Project’s GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance. Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
The AQ & GHG Study’s analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant
health risk impact that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we
identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation
measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.47
Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
• Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel-
fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or
better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and
contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant
construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
• Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for
electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools
whenever feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.
46 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6.
47 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice.
24
• Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for
particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes.
• Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all
equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission
control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to
identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
• Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile
organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction
employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for
construction employees.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions
equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13,
Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site
demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection
by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission
beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary
electrical charging stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business
operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off
engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery
areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air
district, and the building manager.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air
filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the
project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air
monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project,
and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not
mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the
affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid
exposure to unhealthy air.
25
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the
project.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the
warehouse use could include refrigeration.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking
spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation
capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-
occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation,
including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated
parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
• Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project
area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel
technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARBapproved courses. Also
require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make
records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay
program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
• Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and
Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and
operation.
Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon
resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31,
2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until
the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should
not be approved.
An full CEQA analysis should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include
an updated GHG analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce
26
emissions to below thresholds. The analysis should also demonstrate a commitment to the
implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant
emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.0783 Total DPM (lbs)139.0093151 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.00169
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.429041096 Total DPM (g)63054.62532 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.009260274
Construction Duration (days)324 Emission Rate (g/s)0.002252466 Total DPM (lbs)3.38
Total DPM (lbs)139.0093151 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)4.86164E-05
Total DPM (g)63054.62532 Total Acreage 3.04 Release Height (meters)3
Start Date 2/1/2022 Max Horizontal (meters)156.86 Total Acreage 3.04
End Date 12/22/2022 Min Horizontal (meters)78.43 Max Horizontal (meters)156.86
Construction Days 324 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)78.43
Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5
Population 64,201 Setting Urban
Start Date 2/1/2022 Population 64,201
End Date 12/22/2022
Total Construction Days 324
Total Years of Construction 0.89
Total Years of Operation 29.11
Construction Operation
2022 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
Start date and time 05/25/22 13:24:58
AERSCREEN 21112
Corydon III, Construction
Corydon III, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.225E‐02 g/s 0.179E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 156.86 meters 514.63 feet
Area Source Width: 78.43 meters 257.32 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode:URBAN
Population:64201
Dist to Ambient Air:1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Attachment B
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2022.05.25_AERSCREEN_CorydonIII_Construction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 05/25/22 13:27:18
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 05/25/22 13:27:26
REFINE started 05/25/22 13:27:26
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 05/25/22 13:27:28
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 05/25/22 13:27:29
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT
REF TA HT
0.42037E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47411E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51700E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55191E+01 75.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.55823E+01 80.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42153E+01 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29481E+01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23228E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18950E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15882E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13566E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11789E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10368E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.92267E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82883E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75005E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68332E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62672E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57768E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53454E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49682E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46364E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43416E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40761E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38382E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36241E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34291E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32516E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30898E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29416E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28040E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26774E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25604E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24524E+00 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23518E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22584E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21713E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20900E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20140E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19424E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18750E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18116E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17519E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16952E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16416E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15909E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15428E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14973E+00 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14541E+00 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14130E+00 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13738E+00 1225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13365E+00 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13010E+00 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12671E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12346E+00 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12037E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11740E+00 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11456E+00 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11184E+00 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10923E+00 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10753E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10508E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10273E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10046E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98282E‐01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.96183E‐01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.94160E‐01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.92210E‐01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90329E‐01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.88514E‐01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86760E‐01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85066E‐01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83428E‐01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.81845E‐01 1800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80312E‐01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78829E‐01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77392E‐01 1875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76000E‐01 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74651E‐01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73343E‐01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72074E‐01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70843E‐01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69647E‐01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68486E‐01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67359E‐01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66263E‐01 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65197E‐01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64161E‐01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63153E‐01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62172E‐01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61218E‐01 2224.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60288E‐01 2250.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59383E‐01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58500E‐01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57641E‐01 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56803E‐01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55985E‐01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55188E‐01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54411E‐01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53652E‐01 2449.99 0.00 25.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52912E‐01 2475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52188E‐01 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51482E‐01 2525.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50792E‐01 2550.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50118E‐01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49460E‐01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48816E‐01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48187E‐01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47571E‐01 2675.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46969E‐01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46380E‐01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45804E‐01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45240E‐01 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44688E‐01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44148E‐01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43619E‐01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43100E‐01 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42592E‐01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.42095E‐01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41607E‐01 2950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41130E‐01 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40661E‐01 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40202E‐01 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39752E‐01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39310E‐01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38877E‐01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38452E‐01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.38035E‐01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37626E‐01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37224E‐01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36830E‐01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36442E‐01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36062E‐01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35689E‐01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35322E‐01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34962E‐01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34608E‐01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34260E‐01 3400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33919E‐01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33583E‐01 3450.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33253E‐01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32928E‐01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32609E‐01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32295E‐01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31987E‐01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31683E‐01 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31384E‐01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31091E‐01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30802E‐01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30517E‐01 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30237E‐01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29962E‐01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29691E‐01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29424E‐01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29161E‐01 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28902E‐01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28647E‐01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28397E‐01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28149E‐01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27906E‐01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27666E‐01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27430E‐01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27197E‐01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26968E‐01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26742E‐01 4075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26519E‐01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26299E‐01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26083E‐01 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25869E‐01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25659E‐01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25451E‐01 4225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25247E‐01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25045E‐01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24846E‐01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24650E‐01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24456E‐01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24265E‐01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24077E‐01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23891E‐01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23708E‐01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23527E‐01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23348E‐01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23172E‐01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22998E‐01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22826E‐01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22657E‐01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22489E‐01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22324E‐01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22161E‐01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22000E‐01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21841E‐01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21684E‐01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21529E‐01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21375E‐01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21224E‐01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21075E‐01 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20927E‐01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20781E‐01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20637E‐01 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20494E‐01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20354E‐01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20215E‐01 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
Start date and time 05/25/22 13:31:38
AERSCREEN 21112
Corydon III, Operation
Corydon III, Operation
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.486E‐04 g/s 0.386E‐03 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 156.86 meters 514.63 feet
Area Source Width: 78.43 meters 257.32 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 64201
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2022.05.25_AERSCREEN_CorydonIII_Operation.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 05/25/22 13:38:14
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 05/25/22 13:38:22
REFINE started 05/25/22 13:38:22
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 05/25/22 13:38:24
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 05/25/22 13:38:25
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT
REF TA HT
0.90731E‐01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10233E+00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11159E+00 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11912E+00 75.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
* 0.12049E+00 80.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90983E‐01 100.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63631E‐01 125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50134E‐01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40902E‐01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34279E‐01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29281E‐01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25446E‐01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22378E‐01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19915E‐01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17889E‐01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16189E‐01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14749E‐01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13527E‐01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12469E‐01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11537E‐01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10723E‐01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10007E‐01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93709E‐02 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87977E‐02 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82843E‐02 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78221E‐02 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74014E‐02 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70183E‐02 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66691E‐02 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63492E‐02 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60521E‐02 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57787E‐02 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55264E‐02 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52932E‐02 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50761E‐02 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48745E‐02 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46866E‐02 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45111E‐02 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43469E‐02 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.41925E‐02 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.40471E‐02 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.39102E‐02 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.37813E‐02 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.36590E‐02 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.35432E‐02 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.34337E‐02 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.33300E‐02 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.32317E‐02 1150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.31385E‐02 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.30498E‐02 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.29653E‐02 1225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28848E‐02 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.28080E‐02 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.27348E‐02 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.26648E‐02 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25979E‐02 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.25339E‐02 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24726E‐02 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.24139E‐02 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23575E‐02 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.23209E‐02 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22681E‐02 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.22172E‐02 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21684E‐02 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.21213E‐02 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20760E‐02 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.20324E‐02 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19903E‐02 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19497E‐02 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.19105E‐02 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18726E‐02 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18360E‐02 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.18007E‐02 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17665E‐02 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17334E‐02 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.17014E‐02 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16704E‐02 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16404E‐02 1900.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.16113E‐02 1925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15830E‐02 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15556E‐02 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15291E‐02 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.15033E‐02 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14782E‐02 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14539E‐02 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14302E‐02 2100.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.14072E‐02 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13848E‐02 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13631E‐02 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13419E‐02 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13213E‐02 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.13012E‐02 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12817E‐02 2275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12627E‐02 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12441E‐02 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12260E‐02 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.12084E‐02 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11912E‐02 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11744E‐02 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11580E‐02 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11420E‐02 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11264E‐02 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.11112E‐02 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10963E‐02 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10818E‐02 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10675E‐02 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10536E‐02 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10400E‐02 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10268E‐02 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10138E‐02 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.10011E‐02 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.98863E‐03 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.97646E‐03 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.96454E‐03 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.95288E‐03 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.94146E‐03 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.93027E‐03 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.91931E‐03 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.90857E‐03 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.89805E‐03 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.88774E‐03 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.87763E‐03 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.86771E‐03 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.85800E‐03 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.84846E‐03 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.83911E‐03 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82994E‐03 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.82094E‐03 3150.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.81211E‐03 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.80343E‐03 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.79492E‐03 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.78657E‐03 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77836E‐03 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.77030E‐03 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.76239E‐03 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.75461E‐03 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.74698E‐03 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73947E‐03 3400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.73209E‐03 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.72484E‐03 3450.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71772E‐03 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.71071E‐03 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.70382E‐03 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69705E‐03 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.69039E‐03 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.68384E‐03 3600.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67739E‐03 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.67105E‐03 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.66482E‐03 3675.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65868E‐03 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.65264E‐03 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64669E‐03 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.64084E‐03 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.63508E‐03 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62941E‐03 3825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.62382E‐03 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61832E‐03 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.61291E‐03 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60757E‐03 3925.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.60232E‐03 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59714E‐03 3975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.59204E‐03 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58702E‐03 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.58206E‐03 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57719E‐03 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.57238E‐03 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56764E‐03 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.56296E‐03 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55836E‐03 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.55382E‐03 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54934E‐03 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54492E‐03 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.54057E‐03 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53627E‐03 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.53204E‐03 4325.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52786E‐03 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.52374E‐03 4375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51967E‐03 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51566E‐03 4425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.51170E‐03 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50780E‐03 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50394E‐03 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.50014E‐03 4525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49638E‐03 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.49267E‐03 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48902E‐03 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48540E‐03 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.48184E‐03 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47832E‐03 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47484E‐03 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.47141E‐03 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46802E‐03 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46467E‐03 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.46136E‐03 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45810E‐03 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45487E‐03 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.45168E‐03 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44853E‐03 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44542E‐03 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.44235E‐03 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43931E‐03 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
0.43631E‐03 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0‐360 10011001
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0
310.0 2.0
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation,
stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and
Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional
Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with
EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major
military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic
characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE,
Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include
consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from
industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
Attachment C
2
•Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
•Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
•Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
•Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
•Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
•Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
•Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports
and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard
to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead
agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks
and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from
toxins and Valley Fever.
•Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial
facilities.
•Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA
compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
•Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
•Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
•Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
•Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
•Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
•Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
3
•Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi.
•Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los
Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines.
•Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with
clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange
County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of
wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange
County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection
of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the
development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the
discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including
Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business
institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to
characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point
Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army
Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
•Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
•Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
•Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation
development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of
groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to
show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and
County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included
the following:
•Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for
the protection of drinking water.
•Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities
through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted
4
public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned
about the impact of designation.
•Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments,
including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water
transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
•Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance
with Subtitle C requirements.
•Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste.
•Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed
the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
•Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to
prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
•Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the
Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants.
•Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and
Olympic National Park.
•Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico
and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA.
•Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a
national workgroup.
•Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while
serving on a national workgroup.
•Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal
watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐
wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks.
•Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water
Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9.
Activities included the following:
•Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the
potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking
water supplies.
•Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing
to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in
Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
•Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
•Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in
negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific
5
principles into the policy‐making process.
•Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
•Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
•Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
•Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
•Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
•Conducted aquifer tests.
•Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
•At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
•Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
•Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California
where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
6
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at
schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE
Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater
Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,
Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy
of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a
meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water
Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited
presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of
the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a
meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address
Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental
Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater
(and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage
Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and
State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
8
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of
Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations,
2009‐2011.
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks,
storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil
drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and
modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in
surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by
water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote,
perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates
(MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from
various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the
evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist
at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert
witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an
expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad,
agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment D
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner
UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher)
UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor
UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator
UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate
Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist
National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor
Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager
Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager
Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor
King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist
Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist
Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist
Publications:
Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil
Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48
Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property
Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C.,
(2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated
Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.
Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and
Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.
Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.
Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and
Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal
of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best
Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living
near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air
Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid
Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two
Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins
And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527-
000530.
Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near
a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.
Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for
Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.
Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater,
Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.
Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food,
Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science
and Technology. 49(9),171-178.
Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme
For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC)
2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities,
and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science
and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from
Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using
High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management
Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water
Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal
of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor
emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and
Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.
Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and
distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users
Network, 7(1).
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids
Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters
thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third
World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.
Presentations:
Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law
Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.
Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile
organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American
Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.
Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.;
Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.
Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse,
R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis,
Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United
States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted
from Tuscon, AZ.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United
States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the
United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture
conducted from Tuscon, AZ.
Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in
populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air
Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and
Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing
Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from
University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A
Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst
MA.
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment
Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted
from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3-
Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture
conducted from San Diego, CA.
Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala,
Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on
Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia
Hotel in Oslo Norway.
Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And
Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting &
Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel,
Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton
Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA
Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater
Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from
Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related
Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human
Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and
Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability
and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental
Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento,
California.
Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh
International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical
Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus
Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California
CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA
Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and
Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water
Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture
conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a
Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from
Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water
Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted
from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery
Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil
Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from
Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from
Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur
Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th
Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue
Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three
Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim
California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science
100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on
the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New
Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage
tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1,
2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San
Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation
Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry,
Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of
Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on
VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of
polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the
Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts
in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation
d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA
Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa
Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division
Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino
Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse
Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.
Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.
Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey
Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido”
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237
Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica
The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants
Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants
Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District
Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants
Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa
Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants
Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi
Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles
Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC
Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division
Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish
Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants
Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants
Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants
Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant
Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida
Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division
James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.
Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division
Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009