HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.10.02 SAFER Comment on MND - Rome Hill - FinalVia Email
October 2, 2025
Damaris Abraham, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Lake Elisnore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
dabraham@lake-elsinore.org
Re: Comment on the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) for Rome Hill Commercial Project (Planning Application No. 2021-
19)
Dear Mr. Abraham,
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”) regarding the Rome Hill Commercial Project, including all actions related or
referring to the proposed construction of two commercial buildings on a 6.77-acre project site
(“Project”).
After careful review of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)
and its accompanying documents, SAFER is concerned that the IS/MND does not adequately
analyze or mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources and air
quality. As discussed below, there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant
adverse environmental impacts, and an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is therefore
required. SAFER requests that the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”) prepare an EIR for the Project
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section
21000, et seq. SAFER’s comments are supported by expert wildlife ecologist Shawn Smallwood,
Ph.D., whose comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A. SAFER’s comments are also
supported by air quality experts Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D, and Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., of the
environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprises whose comments and CVs
are attached as Exhibit B.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located in southeast Lake Elsinore at Grand Avenue and Vail Street, which
would include the development of two same-sized commercial manufacturing buildings with
office space totaling 92,760 square-feet. The Project would also include two 60-foot-long
loading docks and 180 parking spaces.
October 2, 2025
Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 2 of 6
LEGAL STANDARD
An EIR is required rather than a mitigated negative declaration if there is a “fair
argument” that a proposed project may have an adverse environmental impact. Communities for
a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48
Cal. 4th 310, 319-320 (“CBE v. SCAQMD”). 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 and
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 making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies
weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a
preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. 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.
The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve
conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the
record to support the prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74.
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 (emphasis in original).
October 2, 2025
Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 3 of 6
DISCUSSION
I. There is a Fair Argument that the Project may have Significant Unmitigated
Impacts on Biological Resources.
Dr. Smallwood’s associate Noriko Smallwood conducted a 2.75-hour daytime wildlife
survey on September 12, 2025. (Ex. A, p. 2.) On September 20, 2025, Noriko conducted another
2.7-hour daytime survey, as well as a 2.5-hour nocturnal survey. (Id.) During her surveys, Noriko
detected a total of 42 species of vertebrate wildlife, 11 of which are special status. (Id. at pp. 11-
12.) The special status species observed onsite include the California gull, turkey vulture, sharp-
shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, Nuttall’s woodpecker, American kestrel, Yuma myotis, canyon
bat, silver-haired bat, western yellow bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat. (Id.) Furthermore, Dr.
Smallwood carefully reviewed the General Biological Assessment (“GBA”) prepared by
Hernandez Environmental Services (“HES”). Based on the results of the surveys conducted at
the Project Site, and his review of the GBA, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project may have
significant, unmitigated impacts on special status species. Accordingly, an EIR must be prepared
for the Project.
A. The Project Site provides habitat for special status species.
Given the results of Noriko’s surveys, Dr. Smallwood concluded that “[t]he evidence is
overwhelming that the [P]roject [S]ite provides habitat to multiple special status species of
wildlife.” (Ex. A, p. 25.) The Project Site is habitat for at least 11 special status species,
including include the California gull, turkey vulture, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk,
Nuttall’s woodpecker, American kestrel, Yuma myotis, canyon bat, silver-haired bat, western
yellow bat, and Mexican free-tailed bat. (Id.) Indeed, CEQA directs lead agencies to determine
whether a proposed project would have a “substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G,
§IV(a)[emphasis added].)
The California gull and Nuttall’s woodpecker are special status species or otherwise
sensitive because it is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Bird of Conservation
Concern (“BCC”), which are “migratory nongame birds that without additional conservation
action are likely to become candidates for listing under the [federal] Endangered Species Act.” 1
The American kestrel, sharp-shinned hawk, red-tailed hawk, and turkey vulture are special status
species or otherwise sensitive, due to their status as Birds of Prey (“BOP”), which are birds that
are “naturally rare” and protected under the Fish and Game Code. (Exhibit A, pp. 11-12; Cal.
Fish & Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, 3513.) The silver-haired bat, Yuma myotis, and western
yellow bat are considered special status species as they appear on the Special Animals List
1 See, US Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFW”), Birds of Conservation Concern 2021,
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf.
October 2, 2025
Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 4 of 6
maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”).2 The other two bats
Noriko detected, the canyon bat and Mexican free-tailed bat are also special status or otherwise
sensitive because they are currently being tracked by the Western Bat Working Group
(“WBWG”).
The IS/MND concludes that “[b]ased on the site biological survey conducted by [HES],
no evidence of any sensitive species was identified during the site survey. Thus, the finding
under this issue is that the implementation of the proposed project will have no impact on any
sensitive species and no mitigation is required.” (IS/MND, p. 44.) However, Noriko’s survey
results demonstrate that this is not true. For example, Noriko observed multiple special status
birds flying and circling over the site. (Ex. A, pp. 11-12.) Noriko also detected special status bats
onsite through the use of an acoustic bat detector. (Id. at p. 2.) Direct observations made by
Noriko show that the Project Site undoubtedly supports several special status species.
B. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Project may result in significant
impacts on special status species.
Based on survey results, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project may significantly
impact special status species that were observed on site. These impacts include habitat loss and
further habitat fragmentation, interference with wildlife movement, and vehicle-wildlife
collisions. (Ex. A, pp. 26-31.)
1. Habitat loss.
Dr. Smallwood determined that the Project would result in habitat loss affecting the
ability for special status birds to nest onsite. (Id. at p. 26.) The IS/MND states that “[w]hen
development proceeds, the [P]roject [S]ite is unlikely to contain nesting birds because all trees
have been removed from the site following a nesting bird clearance survey. Thus, nesting birds
are not likely to be adversely impacted. Given that no suitable habitat for nesting birds has been
identified within the [P]roject [S]ite, impacts thereof would be less than significant.” (IS/MND,
p. 44.) However, Dr. Smallwood explains why this conclusion is unsupported:
“[S]ome birds (e.g., killdeer) nest on bare ground, and others undoubtedly nest in
the trees and ornamental vegetation that surrounds the [P]roject [S]ite in support of
their nest attempts. It is overly simplistic and misleading of the IS/MND to claim
that the [P]roject [S]ite does not provide nesting opportunities. HES’s (2022)
survey did not even take place during the avian breeding season, so HES’s
observations are limited in their credibility regarding nesting.”
(Ex. A, p. 26.) Based on repeat surveys conducted during the avian breeding season nearby, in
the City of Murrieta, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project would result in the loss of 25 nests
and 35 nest attempts, which “would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in
2 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Special Animals List (July 2025), California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline
October 2, 2025
Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 5 of 6
the IS/MND.” (Id.) Dr. Smallwood adds that “the impacts would not end with the immediate loss
of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The [P]roject would prevent the
production of 102 fledglings per year.” (Id. at p. 27.)
Dr. Smallwood’s findings and conclusions are substantial evidence that the Project may
result in significant unmitigated habitat loss affecting special status and migratory birds. For this
reason, an EIR is warranted.
2. Interference with wildlife movement.
Noriko’s surveys demonstrate that “[a]t a minimum, the [P]roject [S]ite provides wildlife
with stopover opportunities during migration or dispersal of young.” (Ex. A, p. 27.) Yet, the
IS/MND concludes that “the proposed project does not appear to support wildlife movement.”
(IS/MND, p. 44.) Dr. Smallwood explains the importance of the site to wildlife movement:
“A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because is
composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of
anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and
staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol []. The [P]roject would cut wildlife
off from one of the last remaining stopover and staging opportunities in the project area, forcing
volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites.”
(Ex. A, p. 27.) Based on the wildlife activity observed at the Project Site, and his expertise on
wildlife movement, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project would significantly impact
wildlife movement in the area, warranting the preparation of an EIR.
3. Vehicle-wildlife collisions.
“The IS/MND neglects to address one of the [P]roject’s most obvious, substantial
impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated
traffic.” (Ex. A, p. 28.) By analyzing the vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) during the Project’s
construction, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project would result in 703 vertebrate wildlife
fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. (Id.) This is a potentially significant,
unmitigated impact. Thus, an EIR is required.
II. There is a Fair Argument that the Project may have Significant Unmitigated Air
Quality Impacts.
Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann carefully reviewed the IS/MND and the Air Quality,
Greenhouse gas, and Energy Impact study prepared by MD Acoustics and found that the
IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the health risks associated with the Project’s emissions of
diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). (Ex. B, p. 1.) “DPM is typically composed of carbon particles
(‘soot’, also called black carbon, or BC) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40
October 2, 2025
Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 6 of 6
known cancer-causing substances.”3 To properly evaluate the health impacts posed by the
Project’s emissions of DPM, a health risk assessment (“HRA”) must be prepared. (Ex. B, p. 1.)
Indeed, the California Department of Justice “recommends that all potential warehouse projects
prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (‘OEHHA’), the organization for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in
California.” (Id. at pp. 1-2.) Thus, “an HRA should have been prepared to assess the potential
health risks to nearby sensitive receptors from diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions
generated during construction and operation.” (Id. at p. 2.)
Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann prepared a screening-level HRA to determine the
health risk impact of the Project. Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann determined that the Project
would create an excess cancer risk of approximately 66.8 in one million, greatly exceeding the
cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million set by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District. (Id. at p. 5.) As Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann explain, “[o]ur screening-level HRA
demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially
significant health risk impact.” (Id. at 6.) Thus, an EIR should be prepared to properly analyze
and mitigate this impact.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City prepare an EIR to analyze and
mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kylah Staley
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
3 Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, California Air Resources Board https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-
diesel-exhaust-and-health.
EXHIBIT A
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 29 September 2025
RE: Rome Hill Commercial
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from
development of the proposed Rome Hill Commercial project. I understand the project
would add four warehouses and office buildings totaling 92,760 sf on 6.77 acres at the
northern corner of Grand Ave and Kathryn Way in Lake Elsinore, California. My
comments that follow address my concerns that Hernandez Environmental Services
(HES 2022) and the IS/MND mischaracterize the existing environmental setting, and
that the impacts analysis is flawed and the mitigation strategy is inadequate.
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 as a post-
graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research
has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with
the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many
papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs
Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife
Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve 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. My CV is attached.
THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of
Environmental Impacts specifies that such evaluation includes potential impacts to
special-status species. However, an important policy of CEQA is “to prevent the
elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife
populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future
generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the
major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not
restricted to special-status species, but it also applies to wildlife populations and plant
and animal communities. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife
habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This
2
definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of
the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction
(Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status
species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because
these species are forage, provisioners of refugia and nest substrates, and ecological
mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA
Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information
and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other
species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which special-
status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.
All wildlife species should be of concern in a CEQA review, but the CEQA prioritizes
special-status species. The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed
in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species
under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under
CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special
concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?
DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service
Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors
protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5,
3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).
What follows is a summary of a site visit to detect as many of the species of wildlife as
possible within the short time available. The survey was also intended to detect as many
of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most special-
status species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity. Nonetheless, the
species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of
occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.
SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree
from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for
2.75 hours of diurnal survey from 06:30 to 09:15 hours on 12 September 2025, and for
2.7 hours of diurnal survey from 16:29 to 19:11 hours and for 2.5 hours of nocturnal
survey from 18:32 to 21:02 hours on 20 September 2025. During daylight, Noriko
walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of
binoculars. At night, Noriko strapped a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 30-
foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live. Sonobat
Live identifies bats to species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the
M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those
whose members flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Animals of uncertain
species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.
On 12 September 2025, conditions were cloudy with no wind and temperatures of 57-
66° F. On 20 September 2025, conditions were sunny with 7MPH southwest wind and
3
temperatures of 87-79° F during the diurnal survey, and clear with 5MPH southwest
wind and temperatures of 81-74° F during the nocturnal survey. The site is primarily
annual grassland with some ornamental plants and bordered by a eucalyptus grove to
the north (Photos 1 and 2).
Noriko saw red-tailed hawk and sharp-shinned hawk (Photos 3 and 4), American kestrel
and turkey vulture (Photos 5 and 6), Anna’s hummingbird and American white pelican
(Photos 7 and 8), Vaux swift (Photo 9), white-throated swift and barn swallow (Photos
10 and 11), American crow (Photo 12), house finch and California scrub-jay (Photos 13
and 14), Eurasian collared-dove and hooded oriole (Photos 15 and 16), Cassin’s kingbird
and California gull (Photos 17 and 18), mourning dove (Photo 19), silver-haired bat and
canyon bat (Photos 20 and 21), Yuma myotis and western yellow bat (Photos 22 and 23),
Mexican free-tailed bat (Photo 24), among the other species listed in Table 1. Counting
the detections of two bat species that cannot yet be confirmed, Noriko detected 42
species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 13 species with
special status (Table 1).
Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 12 September 2025. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.
4
Photos 3 and 4. Red-tailed hawk (left), and sharp-shinned hawk (right) on the
project site, 20 September 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 5 and 6. American kestrel with a lizard (left), and turkey vulture (right) on
the project site, 20 September 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
5
Photos 7 and 8. Anna’s hummingbird (top), and American white pelican (bottom)
just off the project site, 12 September 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
6
Photos 9, 10, and 11. Vaux swift (top), and white-throated swift (bottom left), and
barn swallow (bottom right) on the project site, 20 and 12 September 2025. Photos by
Noriko Smallwood.
7
Photo 12. American crows flying over the project site, 20 September 2025. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 13 and 14. House finch (left), and California scrub-jay (right) on the project
site, 12 September 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
8
Photos 15 and 16. Eurasian collared-dove (left), and hooded oriole (right) on the
project site, 12 September 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 17 and 18. Cassin’s kingbird on the project site (left), and California gull just
off the project site (right), 12 September 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
9
Photo 19. Mourning doves on the project site, 12 September 2025. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.
Photo 20. Sonogram of silver-haired bat detected on site using Sonobat Live and a
Pettersson M500, 20 September 2025.
10
Photos 21, 22, and 23. Sonogram of canyon bat (top) Yuma myotis (middle), and
western yellow bat (bottom) detected on site using Sonobat Live and a Pettersson
M500, 20 September 2025.
11
Photo 24. Sonogram of Mexican free-tailed detected on site using Sonobat Live and a
Pettersson M500, 20 September 2025.
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and
accurately reported.
Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.75 hours of diurnal survey on 12
September 2025, and during 2.7 hours of diurnal survey and 2.5 hours of nocturnal
survey on 20 September 2025.
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Lizard sp. In talons of AMKE
American wigeon Mareca amcericana Flew over in evening
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Many, foraged on site
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis In flock with VASW
Vaux swift Many, foraged
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL
American white pelican Pelacanus
erythrorhynchos
SSC1
Just off site
Great egret Ardea alba Just off site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Circled over
12
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Pair flew over
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Called, flew over
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Caught lizard
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Many, roosted in
eucalyptus grove
Common raven Corvus corax
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica In flock with swifts
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii Called just off site
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
California towhee Melozone crissalis
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus Flew over
Orange-crowned
warbler Oreothlypis celata Called just off site
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L Possible detection
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Possible detection
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L
California vole Microtus californicus Burrows
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID
=109406) as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern
(https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); SSC
= California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of
Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG =
Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BOP =
protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
13
ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 40 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a large number for the
brevity of her survey effort. However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the
project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are
always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression
models to Noriko’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into
her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with
longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of
model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the
theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been
detected during the survey. The model fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 12
September, for example, predicts 40 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be
detected, or 12 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). Note also that
Noriko’s rate of species detections exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence
interval estimated from other morning surveys in the region.
Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s visual-
scan surveys on 12
and 20 September
2025.
Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did
and did not detect on 12 and 20 September 2025 composed only a fraction of the species
that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because
many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Cumulative number of wildlife species detectedYAM 0.99
0.99YPM
r2
95% CI 2019-2024 for morning
surveys in region
14
they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only
periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot
possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number
of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s two surveys.
However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data
set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely
make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from
the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note
that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.
As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual
grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I
performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used
binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other
consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey
stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and
then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each
survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined
quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares,
best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on
hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂=1
1 𝑎⁄+𝑎×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑟)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other
words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted
asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species
richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my
research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental
increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have
detected 18.2 species over my first 5.45 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in
the Altamont Pass (5.45 hours to match the 5.45 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight
hours at the project site), which composed 31.9% of the predicted total number of
species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the
example illustrated in Figure 2, the 35 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her
5.45 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 31.9% of the species to
be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With
many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 35 0.319⁄=110
species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of
special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 110
predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 25 special-status
species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife.
15
Because my prediction of 110 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 25 special-status
species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal
mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of
the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting
point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot
alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than
her two surveys to produce an inventory the project site’s wildlife community.
Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a
relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.
A similar analysis can be made of the species detection rates of the nocturnal survey
(Figure 3). Noriko surveyed only the first 2.5 hours of the night of 20 Sepetember 2025,
detecting seven species of bats. Had she surveyed all night long, the model fit to her data
predicts nine species of bats would have been detected. As with the daytime turveys, it
remains unknown which two bat species were present but undetected. The probability is
near 100% that both of thes undetected species were special-status species because 88%
of California’s bat species have special status, and noriko already detected two of the
three that lack special status. And similarly to the daytime surveys, repeat acoustic bat
detection surveys over the period of a year or longer would result in many more bat
species detections. Considering that Noriko’s rate of bat species detections largely follow
the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from bat surveys we have
completed throughout California, it is likely that the most of the bat species of California
would be detected at the project site over a year or longer.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)(95% CI)
16
Figure 3. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of bat
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s
acoustic detection
survey on 20
September 2025.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to
accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife
community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to
special-status species. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental
setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For
these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s
regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this
first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews
of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status
species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and
misleading.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a
proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known
to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as
well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Cumulative number of bat species detectedModel prediction; r2 = 0.98
95% CI of acoustic bat
surveys 2024-2025
Actual count of species
17
information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or
predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. In the case of this project,
however, the survey effort was too cursory and the survey outcome too poorly
interpreted to support an accurate characterization of the existing wildlife community.
A reconnaissance survey was conducted by one biologist on 22 November 2021 to
“document the existing habitat conditions, obtain plant and animal species information,
view the surrounding uses, assess the potential for state and federal waters, assess the
potential for wildlife movement corridors, assess the presence of critical habitat, and, if
present, assess for the presence of critical habitat constituent elements,” and to perform
a burrowing owl habitat assessment. The survey was begun at noon, which is when
wildlife are least active. HES (2022) fails to report how long the survey lasted. However
long it lasted, too many survey objectives were pursued simultaneously to have achieved
any of them with due diligence.
In fact, HES (2022) detected only 10 species of vertebrate wildlife on the project site. In
contrast, Noriko detected more than four times the number of species. HES (2022)
detected one species Noriko did not, but Noriko detected 32 species that HES (2022)
did not. If I did not know better, the disparity in survey findings is large enough to
question whether HES and Noriko and surveyed the same wildlife community.
Applying the Sørensen Index of 𝑅𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦=2𝑎
𝑎+𝑎 (Sørensen 1948), where a is the
number of species found by HES, b is the number of species found by Noriko, and c is
the number of species found by both HES and Noriko, the Index of Similarity of the two
wildlife communities is only 0.346 on a scale that ranges 0 to 1. For perspective, the
mean Index of Similarity among 40 comparisons of surveys I completed over the same
time periods and at the same place in Rancho Cordova, California, but on different days
over three years 2020-2023, was 0.755 with a high value of 0.90. An Index value of
0.346 is very low, indicating very dissimilar wildlife communities. The obvious reason
for the apparent dissimilarity is HES’s deficient survey effort. The HES survey did not
last long enough, it started too late in the day to coincide with the period of peak wildlife
activity in a day, and it was burdened by too many simultaneous objectives.
The deficiencies noted above leave unsupported the IS/MND’s (p. 44) conclusion:
“Based on the site biological survey conducted by Hernandez Environmental Services,
no evidence of any sensitive species was identified during the site survey. Thus, the
finding under this issue is that the implementation of the proposed project will have no
impact on any sensitive species and no mitigation is required.” The failure to detect
special-status species reflected the failure to complete a satisfactory wildlife survey.
Noriko’s survey provides the evidence that HES’s survey was inadequate.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review s and of consulting with local experts is to
inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this
information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project
site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site
18
due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths. In the case of this project,
the desktop review was incomplete, and the review that was completed was distorted to
minimalize the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species.
To select the pool of species for analyzing occurrence likelihoods, which is a form of
habitat assessment, HES (2022) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base for
special-status species occurrence records within five miles of the project site. By
querying the CNDDB to establish the pool of special-status species for analysis of
occurrence likelihoods, HES (2022) screened out many special-status species from
further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the
existing environmental setting. The CNDDB is not designed to support absence
determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife
community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It
does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we
have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the
state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map.
That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” HES (2022) and
hence the IS/MND misuse the CNDDB.
The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed
access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been
surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes
never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but
not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested
only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently
assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than
were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore,
occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status
decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because
negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a
basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low,
moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it
cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.
And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the
CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without
adequate support of field surveys.
In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 154 special-status species
of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence
potential (Table 2). Of these 154 species, 19 (12%) were recorded on or just off the
project site, and another 63 (41%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the
site (Very close), another 17 (11%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 53
(34%) between 4 to 30 miles (In region). Nearly two thirds (64%) of the species in Table
2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore
supports at least 19 special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for
supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of
recorded occurrences.
19
Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist
records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles
of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the
species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit.
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
HES
2022
Occurrences in data
base records, Site
visits
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT Yes Absent In region
San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE Absent In region
Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE Yes Absent In region
Delhi sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus
abdominalis
FE Yes In region
Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE Yes Absent In region
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Absent In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC Yes Absent In region
Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC Yes Absent Nearby
Granite spiny lizard Sceloporus orcutti Yes Nearby
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Yes Absent In region
Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL Yes Absent In region
Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Yes Absent In region
San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Absent Very close
San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbotti SSC Yes In region
California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Absent In region
Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Absent In region
Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Absent In region
South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region
Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Yes Absent Very close
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Nearby
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Very close
Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
20
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
HES
2022
Occurrences in data
base records, Site
visits
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE Yes In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Yes Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 On site/On site
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC Yes Nearby
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Very close
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC Absent In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC Very close
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Very close
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Very close
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Very close
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close/On site
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP Nearby
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Very close
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL Nearby
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Yes Very close
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close/Very close
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Very close
21
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
HES
2022
Occurrences in data
base records, Site
visits
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Yes Very close
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Yes Absent Very close
Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax Yes On site
Great blue heron Ardea herodias Yes On site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Yes On site/On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Yes Absent Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Yes Absent Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP, WL
Yes Absent Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Yes Very close
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Yes Very close/On site
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Yes Absent Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA,
BOP
Yes Absent Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Yes Absent Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site/On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Yes Absent Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2,
BOP
Yes Absent Very close
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP Absent In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens Yes On site
22
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
HES
2022
Occurrences in data
base records, Site
visits
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site/On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close/On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Yes Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Yes Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Yes Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Yes In region
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Yes Absent On site
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Yes Absent Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Yes Absent Very close
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Yes Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Yes Very close
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Yes Absent Very close
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Yes Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Very close
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Yes Absent Nearby
Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Yes Very close
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range
Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Yes Absent Very close
23
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
HES
2022
Occurrences in data
base records, Site
visits
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Yes Absent Very close
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Yes Absent Very close
Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Yes Very close
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region
MacGillivray’s warbler Geothlypis tolmiei Yes Very close
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Yes On site
Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla Yes Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM Absent In region/On site
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In region
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M In region/On site
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region/Possibly
on site
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In region/On site
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In region/Possibly
on site
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H Absent In region/On site
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG: H In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG: H In region
24
Common name
Species name
Status1
MSHCP
HES
2022
Occurrences in data
base records, Site
visits
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: H In region
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L In region/On site
Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M Absent In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H Absent In range
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Yes Absent In region
Mountain lion Puma concolor Yes Nearby
Bobcat Lynx rufus Yes Nearby
Coyote Canis latrans Yes Very close
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Yes In region
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Yes Absent In region
Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In region
Dulzura kangaroo rat Dipodomys simulans Yes Nearby
Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT Yes Absent In region
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC Yes Absent In region
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC Yes Absent In region
Southern grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus ramona SSC Absent In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Absent In region
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal
threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CT or CE = California
threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected
(California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird
Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working
Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation
Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by
Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
25
Of the 154 special-status species listed in Table 2, HES analyses the occurrence
likelihoods of only 45 (29%) of them, all of which HES determines as absent. Of the
species determined to be absent, three of them have been observed on the project site,
17 of them have been observed within 1.5 miles of the site, and two of them have been
observed between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site. The occurrence likelihoods assigned to
45 special-status species fail to comport with the available occurrence records in public
databases and with what Noriko saw on the project site. HES’s absence determinations
are not credible.
Moreover, the absence determinations are not supported by evidence. Detection survey
protocols have been formulated for many of the special-status species at issue, and for
those species lacking specific protocols, protocols can often be borrowed from the
protocols directed to other similar species. The detection survey protocols have been
formulated by species’ experts to result in detections of members of the species if the
species is truly present, and to otherwise support absence determinations otherwise
referred to as evidence of absence. HES (2022) reports 35 absence determinations
without supporting evidence of absence, which is inappropriate.
Of the 154 special-status species listed in Table 2, the IS/MND fails to analyze the
occurrence likelihoods of 71% of them. Of these species not analyzed for occurrence
likelihood, 16 of them on have been recorded on the project site. HES’s analyses of
occurrence likelihoods are grossly incomplete.
An inaccurate baseline characterization of the wildlife community is ill-suited for
accurately predicting project impacts on wildlife, and it is therefore ill-suited for
formulating appropriate mitigation. Without the appropriate surveys to detect the
special-status species in Table 2, it is reasonable to conclude that the project could
adversely affect every one of them, because each of the species should be assumed
present until proven otherwise. The project would result in habitat destruction and
other potential impacts discussed below.
On the Presence of Special-status Species of Wildlife
There is no doubt that at least 11 special-status species of wildlife occur on the project
site, and there is a high likelihood that 13 special-status species are known to the site
(including the two bat species whose presence could not be confirmed by SonoBat).
Modeling the rate of species detections during Noriko’s survey, and analytically bridging
Noriko’s survey results to a larger research effort, predicts 25 special-status species of
diurnally active vertebrate wildlife should be detectable on the project site after a larger
survey effort conducted over the period of a year or longer. Indeed, species occurrence
records reveal that 19 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife have been detected
within 1.5 miles of the site, and 63 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife have been
detected within four miles of the site. The evidence is overwhelming that the project site
provides habitat to multiple special-status species of wildlife.
Considering Noriko’s observations of at least 11 special-status species, and the
occurrence records of multiple other special-status species very close to the project site
26
the project site is habitat as defined in the scientific literature (Hall et al. 1997). These
species are using the site for migration stopover, survival, and likely for reproduction.
These species are members of a larger wildlife community, the entire composition of
which has yet to be characterized but which undoubtedly adds to the habitat value of the
project site.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none
of which is analyzed adequately in the IS/MND.
REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site
is proven to serve as habitat to at least 43 species of vertebrate wildlife which HES and
Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown.
Because HES’s and Noriko’s surveys were only non-breeding season reconnaissance
surveys and therefore unsuitable for detecting bird nests on the site, estimating total
nest density of birds was not possible. The alternative method would be to infer
productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Noriko has
completed several studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments in
the local area.
According to the IS/MND (p. 44), “When development proceeds, the project site is
unlikely to contain nesting birds because all trees have been removed from the site
following a nesting bird clearance survey. Thus, nesting birds are not likely to be
adversely impacted. Given that no suitable habitat for nesting birds has been identified
within the project site, impacts thereof would be less than significant.” However, some
birds (e.g., killdeer) nest on bare ground, and others undoubtedly nest in the trees and
ornamental vegetation that surrounds the project site, and these birds undoubtedly
forage on the project site in support of their nest attempts. It is overly simplistic and
misleading of the IS/MND to claim that the project site does not provide nesting
opportunities. HES’s (2022) survey did not even take place during the avian breeding
season, so HES’s observations are limited in their credibility regarding nesting.
Based on repeat surveys throughout the avian breeding season, Noriko estimated 5.56
nests/acre on a 3.6-acre site of ruderal grassland bordering a woodland strip in
Murrieta, and 1.86 nests/acre on another 4.83-acre grassland site bordering a strip of
woodland in Murietta. The average of the above two estimates is 3.71 nests/acre. This
average density applied to the 6.77 acres of the project site would predict 25 nest sites.
Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird
species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 35 nest attempts per year
on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9
fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 102 fledglings/year at the project site.
The loss of 25 nest sites and 35 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant
impacts that have not been analyzed in the IS/MND. But the impacts would not end
27
with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost.
The project would prevent the production of 102 fledglings per year. Assuming an
average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual
fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number
of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 115 birds per year denied to
California.
The loss of 115 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently
provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of
which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 115
birds per year would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.
INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a
proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. However, the
IS/MND (p. 44) concludes, “Given the results of the biological survey [HES 2022], the
proposed project does not appear to support wildlife movement.” This conclusion
implies that all 10 species detected by HES were static, unable or unwilling to move.
This conclusion is of course ridiculous.
The species Noriko detected on the project site had at some point moved to the site, and
in fact members of some of these species were in flight when she detected them. At
minimum, the project site provides wildlife with stopover opportunities during
migration or dispersal of young. However, without explaining the methods underlying
its conclusion, HES (2022:14) concludes, “No wildlife movement corridors were found
to be present on the project site. No impacts to wildlife movement corridors are
expected.” This conclusion is made in the absence of any program of observation to
characterize wildlife movement, and it is therefore unfounded.
The IS/MND’s analysis is also flawed because it relies on a false CEQA standard. The
primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether
the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is
critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly
diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing
more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration,
dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014).
The project would cut wildlife off from one of the last remaining stopover and staging
opportunities in the project area, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between
remaining stopover sites. This impact would be significant regardless of whether one
characterizes the site as a corridor.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
28
The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts
to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project -generated traffic.
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross
roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 25―28), including along roads far from the
project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or
from the project’s building. 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 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.
Photo 25. A white-tailed
antelope squirrel runs across the
road just in the Coachella Valley,
26 May 2022. Such road
crossings are usually successful,
but too often prove fatal to the
animal.
Photo 26. A coyote uses the
crosswalk to cross a road on 2
February 2023. Not all drivers
stop, nor do all animals use the
crosswalk. Too often, animals
are injured or killed when they
attempt to cross roads.
29
Photos 27 and 28. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano
County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and mourning dove killed by vehicle
on a Bakersfield road (right; photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.)
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 next
to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass
persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection
rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at
9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25
years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms
comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009)
study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times
that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.
An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would
similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
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 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 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra
Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals
(many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped
skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of
California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs,
30
western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4%
reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of
various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to
quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of
the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be
projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife
The IS/MND predicts construction would generate an estimated 235,117 VMT, and
vendor and hauling trips would generate an estimated 71,685 VMT. The IS/MND
further predicts daily operational VMT of 4,529 daily VMT, which translates to
1,653,085 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled
Vasco Road in Contra Costa County 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 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle
miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted construction-related VMT would
predict 130 wildlife fatalities. The same rate divided into predicted annual VMT would
predict 703 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic.
Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant
impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone
propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are
available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the
proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused
mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed
project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that, as the
IS/MND is currently written, these impacts would be unmitigated.
At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately
analyze potential project impacts on wildlife caused by project-generated traffic.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The IS/MND fails to provide any serious analysis of the project’s potential contributions
to cumulative impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND merely assumes that the required
mitigation measures for direct impacts would suffice as mitigation of cumulative
impacts. However, according to the CEQA’s definition of cumulative impacts, this is not
necessarily the case. The ongoing urban sprawl that is severely fragmenting habitat in
the region is an obvious candidate for cumulative impacts. An analysis is needed.
Because I had seen the above-fallacious argument made in CEQA reviews prepared by
other lead agencies, I decided to test it (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). To measure
the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by development projects, and to measure
cumulative impacts of development, Noriko Smallwood and I revisited 80 sites of
proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA
review documents. We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time
31
of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in
order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the
experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites
had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All
the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate
for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a
66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of
vertebrate animals declined 90%. We reported that “Development impacts measured by
the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%),
followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status
species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic
birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced
vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and
abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss,
fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite
all the mitigation measures and existing policies and regulations.
The IS/MND’s cumulative impacts analysis is flawed. At least a fair argument can be
made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s potential
contributions of cumulative impacts.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The IS/MND requires only two mitigation measures.
BIO-1 requires a short list of best management practices to limit water, toxics, light,
noise and invasive species pollution to neighboring properties. This measure would
provide trivial conservation benefits to wildlife in comparison to the project’s impacts.
The measure would be grossly inadequate.
BIO-2 requires a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls. Now that the burrowing is
a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, the CDFW should
be consulted before this project proceeds any further.
NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds: To comply with the federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys must be required. Even with
this measure, however, the impacts of the project on birds would be permanent and of
large magnitude (see my prediction, above, of the lost productive capacity of breeding
birds). Mitigation would still be needed for habitat loss.
Habitat loss: Should the project go forward, compensatory mitigation is needed for
the loss of habitat. Habitat of equal or greater area should be protected as close to the
project site as feasible.
32
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to
include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of
injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would
likely be injured by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project site.
Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e.,
grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as
opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more
structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with
lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the
abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are
crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020,
Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require
native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the
world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and
diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren
2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022).
Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural
habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of
habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tall amy 2020). Lastly, not only does native
plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than
traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity
hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening
to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
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.
33
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on
bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219-
224.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
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.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for
standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.
Hernandez Environmental Services. 2022. General Biological Assessment and Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 371-150-001 & 371-150-002 City Of Lake Elsinore
County of Riverside, California. Report to Guy Selleck, Anaheim, California.
Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook,
and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037
Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
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.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding
and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
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
34
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife
Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic
development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037.
https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping
in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts
in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
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
September 30, 2025
Kylah Staley
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Rome Hill Commercial Project (SCH No. 2025090173)
Dear Ms. Staley,
We have reviewed the September 2025 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the
Rome Hill Commercial Project (“Project”) located in the City of Lake Elsinore (“City”). The Project
proposes to construct two commercial manufacturing warehouses with office space totaling 92,760-
square-feet (“SF”) and 180 parking spaces on the 6.77-acre site.
Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts. As a
result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed
Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the project
may have on the environment.
Air Quality Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The IS/MND claims a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified
construction and operational health risk assessment (“HRA”). The IS/MND is thus inconsistent with
CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project to the adverse
impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Under CEQA, agencies must make a “reasonable
effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”1 The
IS/MND also fails to align with the California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”) guidelines for warehouse
best practices, which recommends that all potential warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA in
accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization
1 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2018/s219783a.html
2
responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California.2 To comply with these
requirements, an HRA should have been prepared to assess the potential health risks to nearby sensitive
receptors from diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions generated during construction and
operation. The sum of the Project’s construction and operational cancer risk estimates should then be
compared to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 10 in one
million.3 Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact
We conducted a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality
dispersion model which uses a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum
reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be
exposed.4 We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk
impacts health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates
from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by the OEHHA,
we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.5
The “Rome Hill Commercial Detailed Report” model indicates that construction activities will generate
approximately 79.8 pounds of DPM over the 424-day construction period.6 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 construction of the Project, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 79.8 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸424 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.000989 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 424-day construction period from the total 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 28.84 years. The Addendum’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational
activities will generate approximately 40 pounds of DPM per year during operation. Applying the same
equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for
Project operation:
2 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” CA DOJ, available at: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-
practices.pdf, p. 6.
3 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, March 2023, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/south-coast-aqmd-air-quality-significance-
thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=25.
4 “Air Quality Dispersion Modeling - Screening Models,” U.S. EPA, available at: https://www.epa.gov/scram/air-
quality-dispersion-modeling-screening-models.
5 “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.
6 See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
3
Emission Rate �gramssecond�= 40 lbs 365 days × 453.6 gramslbs × 1 day24 hours × 1 hour3,600 seconds =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐠𝐠/𝐬𝐬
We estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000575 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated
as a 1.5-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 234- by 117-
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 meteorological setting was
selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Lake
Elsinore was obtained from U.S. 2024 Census data.7
The AESCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations for
the Project. The U.S. 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.8 The IS/MND states that the closest known sensitive receptors include residential
buildings that are as close as 56 meters to the Project site (p. 40).
However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrate that the maximally exposed individual
receptor (“MEIR”) is located approximately 125 meters downwind of the Project site.9 Thus, the single-
hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for construction of the Project is therefore approximately
1.333 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 125 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by
10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.1333 µg/m3 for Project construction. For Project
operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.7759 µg/m3 DPM at
approximately 125 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an
annualized average concentration of 0.07759 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR.10
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD. 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 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 used for the various age groups in our screening-level
HRA are as follows:
7 “Lake Elsinore.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2024, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0639486.
8 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf.
9 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN output files.
10 See Attachment C for AERSCREEN output files.
4
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk
Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)11
Age
Sensitivity
Factor 12
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home 13
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)14
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 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 doses 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. We used the following dose algorithm, therefore, to
assess exposures: 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)
We then used the following equation for each appropriate age group to calculate the overall cancer risk:
11 “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.
12 “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.
13 “Risk Assessment Procedures.” SCAQMD, August 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/1401/riskassessmentprocedures_2017_080717.pdf, p. 7.
14 “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.
5
𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴= 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:
DoseAIR = do.se 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 424-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for
construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years) and the first 0.91 years of
the entire infantile stage of life (0-2 years). The annual annualized average concentration for operation
was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.09 years of the
infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16 years) and adult stages 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 0.1333 1.81E-06
Construction 0.91 0.1333 2.00E-05
Operation 1.09 0.0776 1.39E-05
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 3.38E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0776 2.81E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0776 3.12E-06
Lifetime 30 6.68E-05
The excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR
located approximately 125 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are
approximately 1.81, 33.8, 28.1, and 3.12 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the
course of the receptor lifetime (30 years) is approximately 66.8 in one million. The infant, child, and
lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million, resulting in a potentially
significant impact not addressed or identified by the IS/MND or associated documents.
6
Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative. The purpose of the
screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between project-generated emissions and
adverse health risk impacts. The U.S. EPA Exposure Assessment Guidelines suggest an iterative, tiered
approach to exposure assessments, starting with a simple screening-level evaluation using basic tools
and conservative assumptions.15 If required, a more refined analyses with advanced models and
detailed input data can follow.
Our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a
potentially significant health risk impact. An EIR should therefore be prepared to include a refined HRA,
as recommended by the U.S. EPA. If the refined analysis similarly reaches a determination of significant
impact, then mitigation measures should be incorporated, as described in our “Feasible Mitigation
Measures Available to Reduce Emissions” section below.
Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
The IS/MND is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s
potential impacts. As demonstrated above, the Project may result in a significant health risk impact that
should be mitigated further if a refined HRA similarly demonstrates a significant impact. To reduce the
DPM emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the IS/MND
consider several mitigation measures as listed below.
The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends: 16
•Ensure the cleanest possible construction practices and equipment are used. This includes
eliminating the idling of diesel-powered equipment and providing the necessary infrastructure
(e.g., electrical hookups) to support zero and near-zero equipment and tools.
•Implement, and plan accordingly for, the necessary infrastructure to support the zero and near-
zero emission technology vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site. Necessary
infrastructure may include the physical (e.g., needed footprint), energy, and fueling
infrastructure for construction equipment, on-site vehicles and equipment, and medium-heavy
and heavy-heavy duty trucks.
•Require all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with
Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines
are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits, such
that, emission reductions achieved are equal to or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine.
•Requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors,
pressure washers) used during project construction be battery powered.
15 “Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening-Level and Refined.” U.S. EPA, May 2024, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-and-refined.
16 “Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers.” CARB,
August 2023, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CARB%20Comments%20-
%20NOP%20for%20the%20%20Oak%20Valley%20North%20Project%20DEIR.pdf; Attachment A, p. 5 – 8.
7
• Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building
construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet
CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022.
• Require all construction equipment and fleets to be in compliance with all current air quality
regulations.
• Require tenants to use the cleanest technologies available, and to provide the necessary
infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site.
• Require all loading/unloading docks and trailer spaces be equipped with electrical hookups for
trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) or auxiliary power units.
• Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable.
• Requiring all service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks)
used within the project site to be zero-emission. This equipment is widely available and can be
purchased using incentive funding from CARB’s Clean Off-Road Equipment Voucher Incentive
Project (CORE).
• Require future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks
and vans.
• Require all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be zero-emission vehicles and be
fully zero-emission. A list of commercially available zero-emission trucks can be obtained from
the Hybrid and Zero-emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). Additional
incentive funds can be obtained from the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program.
• Restrict trucks and support equipment from idling longer than two minutes while on site.
• Require the installation of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading
docks and people living or working nearby.
In addition to recommending similar mitigation as the above-mentioned measures from CARB, the
California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) also suggests:17
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.
• Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook
ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to supply their power.
• Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and
equipment can charge.
• 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
local air district, and the building manager.
• Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock
doors at the project.
• Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations.
17 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10.
8
• 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.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.
Provided above are several mitigation measures that would reduce Project-related DPM emissions.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently reduces emissions released during Project construction and
operation.
An EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as updated health risk
analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the
maximum extent feasible. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of
these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially significant emissions
are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited documentation 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.
9
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Health Risk CalculationsAttachment B: Construction AERSCREEN Output FilesAttachment C: Operations AERSCREEN Output FilesAttachment D: Matt Hagemann CVAttachment E: Paul Rosenfeld CV
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.04 Total DPM (lbs)79.83561644 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.02
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.219178082 Total DPM (g)36213.43562 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.109589041
Construction Duration (days)185 Emission Rate (g/s)0.000988531 Total DPM (lbs)40
Total DPM (lbs)40.54794521 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)0.000575342
Total DPM (g)18392.54795 Total Acreage 6.77 Release Height (meters)3
Start Date 6/30/2025 Max Horizontal (meters)234.08 Total Acreage 6.77
End Date 1/1/2026 Min Horizontal (meters)117.04 Max Horizontal (meters)234.08
Construction Days 185 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)117.04
Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.03 Population 73,595 Setting Urban
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.164383562 Start Date 6/30/2025 Population 73,595
Construction Duration (days)239 End Date 8/28/2026
Total DPM (lbs)39.28767123 Total Construction Days 424
Total DPM (g)17820.88767 Total Years of Construction 1.16
Start Date 1/1/2026 Total Years of Operation 28.84
End Date 8/28/2026
Construction Days 239
2026
Construction Operation
2025 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years)Concentration
(ug/m3)Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.1333 1.81E-06
Construction 0.91 0.1333 2.00E-05
Operation 1.09 0.0776 1.39E-05
Infant (0 - 2)Total 2 3.38E-05
Child (2 - 16)Operation 14 0.0776 2.81E-05
Adult (16 - 30)Operation 14 0.0776 3.12E-06
Lifetime 30 6.68E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 09/26/25
15:44:27
TITLE: Rome Hill, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS ****************************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.989E‐03 g/s 0.785E‐02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE:0.361E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.286E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2)
AREA HEIGHT:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:234.08 meters 767.98 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:117.04 meters 383.99 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN:URBAN
POPULATION:73595
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS ***************************
25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1* 1.000 1.333 20 125.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Attachment B
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS *********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50
HT REF TA HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************
OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1.00 1.019 2525.00 0.2221E‐01
25.00 1.105 2550.00 0.2191E‐01
50.00 1.181 2575.00 0.2162E‐01
75.00 1.246 2600.00 0.2133E‐01
100.00 1.301 2625.00 0.2106E‐01
125.00 1.333 2650.00 0.2079E‐01
150.00 0.9494 2675.00 0.2052E‐01
175.00 0.7422 2700.00 0.2026E‐01
200.00 0.6234 2725.00 0.2001E‐01
225.00 0.5396 2750.00 0.1976E‐01
250.00 0.4733 2775.00 0.1951E‐01
275.00 0.4200 2800.00 0.1928E‐01
300.00 0.3761 2825.00 0.1904E‐01
325.00 0.3395 2850.00 0.1881E‐01
350.00 0.3087 2875.00 0.1859E‐01
375.00 0.2824 2900.00 0.1837E‐01
400.00 0.2596 2925.00 0.1816E‐01
425.00 0.2400 2950.00 0.1795E‐01
450.00 0.2227 2975.00 0.1774E‐01
475.00 0.2074 3000.00 0.1754E‐01
500.00 0.1939 3025.00 0.1734E‐01
525.00 0.1818 3050.00 0.1715E‐01
550.00 0.1711 3075.00 0.1696E‐01
575.00 0.1614 3100.00 0.1677E‐01
600.00 0.1525 3125.00 0.1659E‐01
625.00 0.1444 3150.00 0.1641E‐01
650.00 0.1371 3174.99 0.1623E‐01
675.00 0.1304 3200.00 0.1606E‐01
700.00 0.1243 3225.00 0.1589E‐01
725.00 0.1186 3250.00 0.1572E‐01
750.00 0.1134 3275.00 0.1556E‐01
775.00 0.1085 3300.00 0.1539E‐01
800.00 0.1040 3325.00 0.1524E‐01
825.00 0.9978E‐01 3350.00 0.1508E‐01
850.00 0.9588E‐01 3375.00 0.1493E‐01
875.00 0.9225E‐01 3400.00 0.1478E‐01
900.00 0.8884E‐01 3425.00 0.1463E‐01
925.00 0.8562E‐01 3450.00 0.1449E‐01
950.00 0.8261E‐01 3475.00 0.1434E‐01
975.00 0.7977E‐01 3500.00 0.1420E‐01
1000.00 0.7711E‐01 3525.00 0.1407E‐01
1025.00 0.7460E‐01 3550.00 0.1393E‐01
1050.00 0.7223E‐01 3575.00 0.1380E‐01
1075.00 0.6999E‐01 3600.00 0.1367E‐01
1100.00 0.6786E‐01 3625.00 0.1354E‐01
1125.00 0.6583E‐01 3650.00 0.1341E‐01
1150.00 0.6392E‐01 3675.00 0.1329E‐01
1175.00 0.6210E‐01 3700.00 0.1316E‐01
1200.00 0.6036E‐01 3724.99 0.1304E‐01
1225.00 0.5870E‐01 3750.00 0.1292E‐01
1250.00 0.5711E‐01 3775.00 0.1281E‐01
1275.00 0.5560E‐01 3800.00 0.1269E‐01
1300.00 0.5415E‐01 3825.00 0.1258E‐01
1325.00 0.5277E‐01 3850.00 0.1247E‐01
1350.00 0.5146E‐01 3875.00 0.1236E‐01
1375.00 0.5020E‐01 3900.00 0.1225E‐01
1400.00 0.4899E‐01 3925.00 0.1214E‐01
1425.00 0.4783E‐01 3950.00 0.1204E‐01
1450.00 0.4671E‐01 3975.00 0.1193E‐01
1475.00 0.4565E‐01 4000.00 0.1183E‐01
1500.00 0.4462E‐01 4025.00 0.1173E‐01
1525.00 0.4364E‐01 4050.00 0.1163E‐01
1550.00 0.4269E‐01 4075.00 0.1153E‐01
1575.00 0.4178E‐01 4100.00 0.1144E‐01
1600.00 0.4090E‐01 4125.00 0.1134E‐01
1625.00 0.4006E‐01 4150.00 0.1125E‐01
1650.00 0.3924E‐01 4175.00 0.1116E‐01
1675.00 0.3845E‐01 4200.00 0.1107E‐01
1700.00 0.3769E‐01 4225.00 0.1098E‐01
1725.00 0.3695E‐01 4250.00 0.1089E‐01
1750.00 0.3624E‐01 4275.00 0.1080E‐01
1775.00 0.3555E‐01 4300.00 0.1072E‐01
1800.00 0.3488E‐01 4325.00 0.1063E‐01
1825.00 0.3423E‐01 4350.00 0.1055E‐01
1850.00 0.3360E‐01 4375.00 0.1047E‐01
1875.00 0.3299E‐01 4400.00 0.1039E‐01
1900.00 0.3240E‐01 4425.00 0.1031E‐01
1925.00 0.3183E‐01 4450.00 0.1023E‐01
1950.00 0.3128E‐01 4475.00 0.1015E‐01
1975.00 0.3074E‐01 4500.00 0.1007E‐01
2000.00 0.3022E‐01 4525.00 0.9995E‐02
2025.00 0.2972E‐01 4550.00 0.9920E‐02
2050.00 0.2922E‐01 4575.00 0.9846E‐02
2075.00 0.2875E‐01 4600.00 0.9773E‐02
2100.00 0.2828E‐01 4625.00 0.9701E‐02
2125.00 0.2783E‐01 4650.00 0.9629E‐02
2150.00 0.2739E‐01 4675.00 0.9559E‐02
2175.00 0.2724E‐01 4700.00 0.9489E‐02
2200.00 0.2682E‐01 4725.00 0.9421E‐02
2225.00 0.2641E‐01 4750.00 0.9353E‐02
2250.00 0.2600E‐01 4775.00 0.9286E‐02
2275.00 0.2561E‐01 4800.00 0.9220E‐02
2300.00 0.2523E‐01 4825.00 0.9155E‐02
2325.00 0.2486E‐01 4850.00 0.9090E‐02
2350.00 0.2450E‐01 4875.00 0.9027E‐02
2375.00 0.2415E‐01 4900.00 0.8964E‐02
2400.00 0.2381E‐01 4924.99 0.8902E‐02
2425.00 0.2347E‐01 4950.00 0.8840E‐02
2450.00 0.2314E‐01 4975.00 0.8779E‐02
2475.00 0.2282E‐01 5000.00 0.8719E‐02
2500.00 0.2251E‐01
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY *********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in
SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
FLAT TERRAIN 1.334 1.334 1.334 1.334 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 124.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 1.019 1.019 1.019 1.019 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 09/29/25
12:20:00
TITLE: Rome Hill, Operations
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS ****************************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.575E‐03 g/s 0.457E‐02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE:0.210E‐07 g/(s‐m2) 0.167E‐06 lb/(hr‐m2)
AREA HEIGHT:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:234.08 meters 767.98 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:117.04 meters 383.99 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN:URBAN
POPULATION:73595
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =5000. meters 16404. feet
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS **********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON‐POINT SOURCES
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS ***************************
25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters ‐ 5000. meters
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1‐HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/m3) (deg) (m) PERIOD
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1* 1.000 0.7759 20 125.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Attachment C
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS *********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE: 250.0 / 310.0 (K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT: 10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALBEDO: 0.35
BOWEN RATIO: 1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
YR MO DY JDY HR
‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M‐O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐1.30 0.043 ‐9.000 0.020 ‐999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50
HT REF TA HT
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10.0 310.0 2.0
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES **********************
OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1‐HR CONC DIST 1‐HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3) (m) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
1.00 0.5929 2525.00 0.1293E‐01
25.00 0.6434 2550.00 0.1275E‐01
50.00 0.6875 2575.00 0.1258E‐01
75.00 0.7251 2600.00 0.1242E‐01
100.00 0.7575 2625.00 0.1226E‐01
125.00 0.7759 2650.00 0.1210E‐01
150.00 0.5526 2675.00 0.1194E‐01
175.00 0.4320 2700.00 0.1179E‐01
200.00 0.3628 2725.00 0.1164E‐01
225.00 0.3140 2750.00 0.1150E‐01
250.00 0.2755 2775.00 0.1136E‐01
275.00 0.2444 2800.00 0.1122E‐01
300.00 0.2189 2825.00 0.1108E‐01
325.00 0.1976 2850.00 0.1095E‐01
350.00 0.1797 2875.00 0.1082E‐01
375.00 0.1644 2900.00 0.1069E‐01
400.00 0.1511 2925.00 0.1057E‐01
425.00 0.1397 2950.00 0.1045E‐01
450.00 0.1296 2975.00 0.1033E‐01
475.00 0.1207 3000.00 0.1021E‐01
500.00 0.1129 3025.00 0.1009E‐01
525.00 0.1058 3050.00 0.9980E‐02
550.00 0.9956E‐01 3075.00 0.9869E‐02
575.00 0.9394E‐01 3100.00 0.9760E‐02
600.00 0.8875E‐01 3125.00 0.9654E‐02
625.00 0.8405E‐01 3150.00 0.9549E‐02
650.00 0.7978E‐01 3174.99 0.9446E‐02
675.00 0.7590E‐01 3199.99 0.9345E‐02
700.00 0.7235E‐01 3225.00 0.9246E‐02
725.00 0.6904E‐01 3250.00 0.9149E‐02
750.00 0.6599E‐01 3275.00 0.9054E‐02
775.00 0.6315E‐01 3300.00 0.8960E‐02
800.00 0.6052E‐01 3325.00 0.8868E‐02
825.00 0.5808E‐01 3350.00 0.8778E‐02
850.00 0.5581E‐01 3375.00 0.8689E‐02
875.00 0.5369E‐01 3400.00 0.8601E‐02
900.00 0.5171E‐01 3425.00 0.8516E‐02
925.00 0.4984E‐01 3450.00 0.8431E‐02
950.00 0.4808E‐01 3475.00 0.8348E‐02
975.00 0.4643E‐01 3500.00 0.8267E‐02
1000.00 0.4488E‐01 3525.00 0.8187E‐02
1025.00 0.4342E‐01 3550.00 0.8108E‐02
1050.00 0.4204E‐01 3575.00 0.8030E‐02
1075.00 0.4074E‐01 3600.00 0.7954E‐02
1100.00 0.3950E‐01 3625.00 0.7879E‐02
1125.00 0.3832E‐01 3650.00 0.7806E‐02
1150.00 0.3720E‐01 3675.00 0.7733E‐02
1175.00 0.3614E‐01 3700.00 0.7662E‐02
1200.00 0.3513E‐01 3724.99 0.7591E‐02
1225.00 0.3417E‐01 3750.00 0.7522E‐02
1250.00 0.3324E‐01 3775.00 0.7454E‐02
1275.00 0.3236E‐01 3800.00 0.7387E‐02
1300.00 0.3152E‐01 3825.00 0.7321E‐02
1325.00 0.3072E‐01 3849.99 0.7256E‐02
1350.00 0.2995E‐01 3875.00 0.7192E‐02
1375.00 0.2922E‐01 3900.00 0.7129E‐02
1400.00 0.2851E‐01 3925.00 0.7067E‐02
1425.00 0.2784E‐01 3950.00 0.7006E‐02
1450.00 0.2719E‐01 3975.00 0.6946E‐02
1475.00 0.2657E‐01 4000.00 0.6886E‐02
1500.00 0.2597E‐01 4025.00 0.6828E‐02
1525.00 0.2540E‐01 4050.00 0.6770E‐02
1550.00 0.2485E‐01 4075.00 0.6714E‐02
1575.00 0.2432E‐01 4100.00 0.6658E‐02
1600.00 0.2381E‐01 4125.00 0.6603E‐02
1625.00 0.2331E‐01 4149.99 0.6548E‐02
1650.00 0.2284E‐01 4175.00 0.6495E‐02
1675.00 0.2238E‐01 4200.00 0.6442E‐02
1700.00 0.2193E‐01 4225.00 0.6390E‐02
1725.00 0.2151E‐01 4250.00 0.6338E‐02
1750.00 0.2109E‐01 4275.00 0.6288E‐02
1775.00 0.2069E‐01 4300.00 0.6238E‐02
1800.00 0.2030E‐01 4325.00 0.6189E‐02
1825.00 0.1992E‐01 4350.00 0.6140E‐02
1850.00 0.1956E‐01 4375.00 0.6092E‐02
1875.00 0.1920E‐01 4400.00 0.6045E‐02
1900.00 0.1886E‐01 4425.00 0.5998E‐02
1925.00 0.1853E‐01 4450.00 0.5952E‐02
1950.00 0.1820E‐01 4475.00 0.5907E‐02
1975.00 0.1789E‐01 4500.00 0.5862E‐02
2000.00 0.1759E‐01 4525.00 0.5817E‐02
2025.00 0.1730E‐01 4550.00 0.5774E‐02
2050.00 0.1701E‐01 4575.00 0.5731E‐02
2075.00 0.1673E‐01 4600.00 0.5688E‐02
2100.00 0.1646E‐01 4625.00 0.5646E‐02
2125.00 0.1620E‐01 4650.00 0.5605E‐02
2150.00 0.1594E‐01 4675.00 0.5564E‐02
2175.00 0.1586E‐01 4700.00 0.5523E‐02
2200.00 0.1561E‐01 4725.00 0.5483E‐02
2225.00 0.1537E‐01 4750.00 0.5444E‐02
2250.00 0.1514E‐01 4775.00 0.5405E‐02
2275.00 0.1491E‐01 4800.00 0.5366E‐02
2300.00 0.1469E‐01 4825.00 0.5328E‐02
2325.00 0.1447E‐01 4850.00 0.5291E‐02
2350.00 0.1426E‐01 4875.00 0.5254E‐02
2375.00 0.1406E‐01 4900.00 0.5217E‐02
2400.00 0.1386E‐01 4924.99 0.5181E‐02
2425.00 0.1366E‐01 4950.00 0.5145E‐02
2450.00 0.1347E‐01 4975.00 0.5110E‐02
2475.00 0.1328E‐01 5000.00 0.5075E‐02
2500.00 0.1310E‐01
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
********************** AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY *********************
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
3‐hour, 8‐hour, and 24‐hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1‐hour concentration as referenced in
SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA‐454/R‐92‐019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1‐HOUR 3‐HOUR 8‐HOUR 24‐HOUR ANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/m3)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
FLAT TERRAIN 0.7765 0.7765 0.7765 0.7765 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 124.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.5929 0.5929 0.5929 0.5929 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
1
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
•Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization, Investigation and Remediation Strategies
•Industrial Stormwater Compliance
•CEQA Review
• Expert Testimony
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist, P.G.
California Certified Hydrogeologist, C.Hg.
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 Experience:
30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater
compliance, and CEQA review. Spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the Resource Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA) and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in
the Western Regional Office where I identified emerging threats to groundwater. While with EPA, I
served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities
undergoing base closure. 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, I developed
extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultations as an expert
witness and a regulatory specialist, and managing projects ranging from industrial stormwater
compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Positions held include:
Government:
Attachment D
Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
2
Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998).
Educational:
Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017;
Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995).
Private Sector:
Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 -- 2003);
Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, responsibilities have included:
•Lead analyst and testifying expert, for both plaintiffs and defendants, 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.
•Recommending 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 exposure to hazards from toxins.
•Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation, for both government
agencies and corporate clients, at more than 150 industrial facilities.
•Serving as expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in cases including contamination of
groundwater, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater
contamination.
•Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns, for both government
agencies and corporate clients.
•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., duties included the following:
Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
•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
3
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 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 included:
•Leading efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of
monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and
groundwater.
•Initiating a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory
analysis at military bases.
•Identifying 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, developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater
to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. 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, 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 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. Prepared geologic reports, conducted
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.
Served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties included:
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.
•Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles
that met strict Sate of California regulatory requirements.
•Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients
and regulators.
•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.
4
With the National Park Service, directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent
degradation of water quality, including the following:
•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 as senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
•Advising 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.
•Shaping 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.
•Improving the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff.
•Earning 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 principles
into the policy-making process.
•Establishing national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber
harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities included:
•Mapping geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models
to determine slope stability.
•Coordinating research with community stakeholders who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
•Characterizing the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city
of Medford, Oregon.
•Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
5
Duties included the following:
•Supervising year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
•Conducting aquifer tests.
•Investigating active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, 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.
•Part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to
2014 and in 2017.
Summary of Testimony Experience Over Past Four Years
In Re New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection et al. vs. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, in the
United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-14766-RMB-JBC. Deposition in 2025.
Representing Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater, wastewater, soil, and air with per- and poly-
fluoroalkyl substances.
In Re Edmond Asher, et al., vs. RTX Corporation (f/k/a Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.) in the County of
Huntington Superior Court, Indiana, Cause number 35D01-2006-CT-000338. Deposition in 2024. Representing
Plaintiffs in matters regarding contamination of groundwater and soil vapor with trichlorethylene.
In Re Wright vs Consolidated Rail Corporation In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Case No: 21L3966.
Deposition in 2023, Representing Plaintiff in matters involving groundwater and drinking water contamination of
perchloroethylene, trichlorethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride.
In Re Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western
Division at Dayton, Case No: 08-cv-326. Deposition in 2022. Representing Plaintiff in matters regarding contamination
of groundwater and indoor air with perchloroethylene and trichloethelene.
Orange County Water District vs. Sabic Innovative Plastics US, LLC, et al. In the Court of Appeal, Fourth District,
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on
the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large RCRA hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon.
6
Los Angeles Waterkeeper vs. AAA Plating and Inspection, Inc. In the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No: No. CV 18-5916 PA (GJSx). Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff in
matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Compton, California.
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics vs. Schneider Dock and Intermodal Facility. In the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, Case No: 3:17-cv-05287-JST. Deposition in 2019. Expert witness representing Plaintiff
in matters involving contaminated stormwater runoff at an industrial facility in Eureka, California.
Bells et al. vs. The 3M Company et al. In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No: 1:16-CV-
02531-RBJ. Deposition in 2018. Expert witness representing Plaintiff on matters regarding the general hydrogeological
conditions present in an area impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances.
Ungar vs. Foundation for Affordable Housing. In the Superior Court, State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No.
BC628890 Deposition in 2017. Expert witness representing defendant on matters involving alleged drinking water
contamination.
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).
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.
Division 1, California, Case No: D070553. Deposition in 2020. Representing Plaintiff in matters involving compliance
with The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
7
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 representatives, 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.
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.
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
8
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.
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.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage.
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 17 March 2025
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. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of 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 E
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 17 March 2025
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:
Rosenfeld, P.E., Spaeth, K.R., McCarthy, S.J. et al. Camp Lejeune Marine Cancer Risk Assessment for Exposure to
Contaminated Drinking Water From 1955 to 1987. Water Air Soil Pollut 235, 124 (2024).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06863-y.
Rosenfeld P.E., Spaeth K.R., Remy L.L., Byers V., Muerth S.A., Hallman R,C., Summers-Evans J., Barker S.
(2023) Perfluoroalkyl substances exposure in firefighters: Sources and implications, Environmental Research,
Volume 220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.115164.
Rosenfeld P.E. and Spaeth K.R., (2023) Authors’ Response to Letter to the Editor from Bullock and Ramacciotti,
Water Air Soil Pollution Volume 234, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06165-3
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure
Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 17 March 2025
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.
Cheremisinoff, N.P., Rosenfeld, P.E. Davletshin, A.R. (2008). Responsible Care. Gulf Publishing. Texas.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 17 March 2025
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 affects 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.
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. Master’s
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. Bachelor’s 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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 17 March 2025
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 at
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
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 E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 17 March 2025
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.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 17 March 2025
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.
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. The 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 the effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 17 March 2025
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate the 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 the 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.
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 District Court of Harris County Texas
Mt Davis Interest, Inc v Sesco Cement Corp
Cause No 2023-26512
Trial 6-6-2-25
In the United States Southern District of New York
Gallo vs Avon Products Inc., et al
Civil Action No.: 1:23-cv-2023
Deposition 4-24-2025
In Vanderburgh Superior Court 5, County of Vanderburgh, Indiana
Markello v CSX
Civil Action No 82D05-2011-CT-004962
Deposition 3-26-25
Iin the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jarosiewicz v Northeast Regional Railroad
Case No 2023 L 002290
Deposition 2-27-25
In the District Court 191st Judicial District Dallas County
Acklin v Poly America International
Cause No DC-22-08610
Deposition 1-8-2025
United States District Court, Norther District of California
Asustin Vs Monsanto
Case No 2:23-cv-272
Deposition 12-20-25
In Jefferson Circuit Court Division One, Louisville, Kentucky
Stafford vs, CSX
Case No. 18-CI-001790
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 17 March 2025
Deposition: 8-27-24
In the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of St. Louis. State of Missouri
Patricia Godfrey vs, Amtrak
Case No. 2122-CC-00525
Deposition: 7-17-24
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda Early Vs. CSX
Case number CV-2021-00241
Deposition 6-24-24
In the Court of Common Please Lucas County, Ohio
Brenda Conkright vs. CSX
Case No. G-4801-CI-0202102664-000
Deposition: 6-4-24
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Greenup Circuit Court
Patsy Sue Napier vs. CSX
Case No. 19-CI-0012
Deposition: 5-8-2-24
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America
Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Trial 3-29-24 and 4-5-24
In the District Court of Hood County State of Texas
Artie Gray vs. Exxon Mobil
Case No. C-2018047
Rosenfeld Deposition:4-22-2024
In the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana
Estate of Clark Stacy vs. Penn Central Corporation
Cause No 2D01-2001-CT-00007
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-25-2024 and 3-7-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin
Michael J. Sylla et al. vs. High-Crush Whitehall LLC
Case No. 2019-CV-63, 2019-CV-64, 2019-CV-65, 2019-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Trempealeau County, State of Wisconsin
Leland Drangstveit vs. High-Crush Blair LLC
Case No. 19-CV-66
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-5-2024
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Donald Lee Ashworth vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No CV-2021-901261
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-23-2024
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Gary L Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-19-2024
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 17 March 2025
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Ricky Bush v. Clean Harbors Colfax LLC
Case No. 1:22-cv-02026-DDD-JPM
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-18-2023 and 1-15-2024
In United States District Court of Hawaii
Patrick Feindt, Jr. et al. vs. The United States of America
Case No. 1:22-cv-LEK-KJM
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-29-2023
In the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit St. Clair County, Illinois
Timothy Gray vs. Rural King et al.
Case No 2022-LA-355
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-26-2023
In United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin
Gary L. Siepe vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 2:21-cv-00919
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Fox vs. BNSF
Case No. 2021 L12
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-12-2023
In the Court of Common Please Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Thomas Schleich vs. Penn Central Corporation
Lead Case No. CV-20-939184
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-27-2023
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County Missouri at Kansas City
Timothy Dalsing vs. BNSF
Case No. No. 2216-cv06539
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-28-2023
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division
International Terminals Company LLC Deer Park Fire Litigation
Lead Case No. 4:19-cv-01460
Rosenfeld Deposition 7-25-2023
In the Circuit Court of Livingston County Missouri
Shirley Ralls vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Lind Railroad
Case No. 28LV-CV0020
Rosenfeld Daubert Hearing 7-18-2023 Trial Testimony 7-19-2023
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Brenda Wright vs. Penn Central and Conrail
Case No. No. 2032L003966
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-13-2023
In the Circuit Court Common Please Philadelphia of Jefferson County Alabama
Frank Belle vs. Birmingham Southern Railroad Company et al.
Case No. 01-cv-2021-900901.00
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-6-2023
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 17 March 2025
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Linda De Gregorio vs. Penn Central
Case No. 002278
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-27-20203
In the United States District Court Eastern District of New York
Rosalie Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-16-2023
In the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County
Judy Cundy vs. BNSF
Case No. 21-2-03718-32
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-9-2023
In The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, PA Civil Trial Division
Feaster v Conrail
Case No. 001075
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-1-2023
In United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Sherman vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:17-cv-01192
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Gonzales vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01690
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-17-2023
In United States District Court District of Colorado
Abeyta vs. BNSF
Case No. 1:21-cv-01689-KMT
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-3-2023
In United States District Court For The Easter District of Louisiana
Nathaniel Smith vs. Illinois Central Railroad
Case No. 2:21-cv-01235
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-30-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino
Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 17 March 2025
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri
Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District
Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington
John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois
Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022, Trial 1-10-2023
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern
George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida
Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida
Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 13 of 17 March 2025
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York
Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska
Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County
James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al. vs Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 14 of 17 March 2025
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail
Case 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. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. 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 vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 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
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk 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. 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. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiffs 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
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 15 of 17 March 2025
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., Plaintifs 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., Plaintifs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants
Case No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
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. 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. vs. Antero, et al.
Civil Action No. 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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 16 of 17 March 2025
Case No. CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma
Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City
Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 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 County of Kern, Unlimited Jurisdiction
Rose Propagation Services vs. Heppe Enterprises
Case No. S-1500-CV-278190, LHB
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2014
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants
Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
In the Court of Galveston County, Texas 56th Judicial District
MDL Litigation Regarding Texas City Refinery Ultracracker Emission Event Litigation
Cause No. 10-UC-0001
Rosenfeld Deposition: March 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: September 2013
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the United States District court of Southern District of California
United States of America, Plaintiff vs. 2,560 Acres of Land, more or less, located in Imperial County, State
of California; and Donald L. Crawford, et. al.
Civil No. 3:11-cv-02258-IEG-RBB
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2012, January 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants
Case No. 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987)
Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 17 of 17 March 2025
Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2010, June 2011