HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.11.17 Supp. SAFER Comment on MND - Rome Hill - Final
Via Email
November 17, 2025
Brian Tisdale, Mayor
Robert Magee, Mayor Pro Tem
Timothy Sheridan, Councilmember
Steve Manos, Councilmember
Jason Simpson, City Manager
City of Lake Elsinore City Council
Cultural Center
183 N. Main St.
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
calvarez@lake-elsinore.org
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: Supplemental Comment on the Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) for Rome Hill Commercial Project (Planning Application
No. 2021-19), City Council Hearing, November 18, 2025, Agenda Item No. 27
Dear Mayor Tisdale, Mayor Pro Tem Magee, Honorable Councilmembers and staff:
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 response to comments provided by City staff regarding the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), SAFER remains 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 again 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 responses to staff 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 responses to staff are attached as Exhibit B.
November 17, 2025
Supplemental Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 2 of 6
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.
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.
November 17, 2025
Supplemental Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 3 of 6
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).
DISCUSSION
I. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Conclude that the Project will not have
Significant Unmitigated Impacts on Biological Resources.
While the responses to comments provided by City staff disagree with Dr. Smallwood’s
conclusion that the Project may significantly impact biological resources, these disagreements do
not amount to substantial evidence. Under CEQA, “opinions rendered by nonexperts” do not
amount to substantial evidence. (Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 894.)
Here, the responses to Dr. Smallwood’s comments appear to be prepared by City staff, not an
expert biologist. Thus, the responses to Dr. Smallwood’s comments and opinions rendered
therein do not qualify as substantial evidence. Even if the responses were prepared by an expert
biologist, the opinions rendered would create a disagreement among experts, which would still
require an EIR for the Project. (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1315,
1316-1317 [“if there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of an effect, the
agency is to treat the effect as significant and prepare an EIR”].) Here, there is substantial
evidence provided by an expert supporting a fair argument that the Project may have a
significant impact on biological resources and City staff fails to demonstrate otherwise.
A. The City does not provide substantial evidence that the Project Site is not
habitat for special status species.
City staff claims that Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion that that the Project Site provides
habitat for multiple special status species is not accurate. Using the example of the turkey vulture
observed on site by Dr. Smallwood’s associate, Noriko Smallwood, staff argues that the Project
Site is not habitat for this special status species because Noriko did not identify any killed
species that the vulture may have been feeding upon. However, Dr. Smallwood explains that
“[o]ne does not need to see the forage of a turkey vulture to determine that its presence at a place
was most likely purposeful, and foraging is not the only reason for a turkey vulture to be located
where it is observed. Like any other animal species, turkey vultures are also social, and they are
selective over their travel routes.” (Ex. A, p. 8.)
Staff also generally claims that Dr. Smallwood’s comments do not describe whether the
habitat identified by Dr. Smallwood “has any of the constituent elements required to support the
identified species as there is no discussion of the habitat that exists on the site.” However, “[i]t is
reasonable to assume that the species detected at the site were present at the site because the site
provides habitat. If CEQA required a higher standard for determining the presence of habitat,
then much greater survey effort would be needed than a simple reconnaissance survey, and much
more would be needed than the survey completed by [Hernandez Environmental Services].” (Id.
November 17, 2025
Supplemental Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 4 of 6
at p. 9.) Based on Noriko’s observation of special status species on the Project Site, is it
reasonable to assume that the site is habitat for these species. At the very least, Noriko’s
observations and Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions drawn therefrom, create a fair argument that the
Project may significantly impact habitat for special status species utilizing the Project Site.
Furthermore, the City’s failure to provide any substantial evidence rebutting Dr. Smallwood’s
findings demonstrates that an EIR is required to further analyze the Project’s impacts on special
status species.
B. The City does not provide substantial evidence that the Project will not result in
significant impacts on special status species.
1. Habitat loss.
Staff attempts to dismiss and discount Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion that the Project would
result in habitat loss affecting the ability for special status birds to nest onsite because no ground
nesting birds were identified on the Project Site. However, absence of such observations does not
mean that birds do not nest on the site. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “[m]ost species that occur at
the project site were not detected because survey personnel were not there often enough or at the
right time to detect them.” (Id. at p. 10.) Importantly, the survey conducted Hernandez
Environmental Services as well as the survey conducted by Noriko were done outside of the
avian breeding season. Thus, “it should not be expected that either survey effort would have
documented ground nesting or any type of nesting on the project site, because the season was not
appropriate for doing so.” (Id.) However, based on repeat surveys at a similar site, Dr.
Smallwood was able to estimate how many nests would be lost as a result of the Project. Staff
does not provide any substantial evidence to rebut this.
2. Interference with wildlife movement.
Staff characterizes Dr. Smallwood’s finding that the Project Site is used for wildlife
movement in the area as “absurd” because species would be required to cross Grand Avenue.
However, Dr. Smallwood points out that most of the species using the Project Site to move
through the area are birds and thus would have no problem crossing Grand Avenue. (Id. at p. 11.)
Additionally, it “would not be at all absurd to assume that nonvolant animals cross roads, or that
they sometimes travel along them” as Dr. Smallwood showed in his comments where he
referenced specific studies on wildlife fatalities resulting from vehicle collisions. (Id.) “The
City’s assumption that roads pose hard barriers to wildlife is in error.” (Id.) As a result the City
has presented no substantial evidence to rebut Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion that the Project may
significantly interfere with wildlife movement.
3. Vehicle-wildlife collisions.
Staff disregards Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion that the Project may result in significant
vehicle-wildlife collisions, stating that Dr. Smallwood’s prediction of how many wildlife
fatalities would result from project-generated traffic “deserves to be ignored.” However, Dr.
Smallwood explained his scientifically-backed methods for reaching his conclusion that project-
November 17, 2025
Supplemental Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 5 of 6
generated traffic would result in approximately 703 wildlife fatalities per year. City staff on the
other hand speculates that vehicle-wildlife collision fatalities would be less than the amount
predicted by Dr. Smallwood “[g]iven the level of historic traffic along major roadways (Grand
Avenue and I-15).” Staff speculates that due to this high level of traffic, wildlife populations
adjacent to these roadways have been depleted. However, “[i]f the populations or wildlife are
already degraded along roadways to be traveled by project-generated traffic, then wildlife
mortality caused by this traffic would be even more likely to result in population-level impacts
and would be even more significant.” (Id. at p. 15.) While Dr. Smallwood has presented
substantial evidence regarding this impact, all City staff has offered is mere speculation. As a
result, Dr. Smallwood has provided substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may
result in significant vehicle-wildlife collisions warranting an EIR.
II. The City Lacks Substantial Evidence to Conclude that the Project Will Not have
Significant Unmitigated Air Quality Impacts.
Similar their responses to Dr. Smallwood, City staff disregards and discounts findings
and conclusions rendered by air quality experts Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann. However, the
issues and arguments raised by staff do not amount to substantial evidence because they are not
provided by an expert. (Jensen, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at 894.)
Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann found that the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the
health risks associated with the Project’s emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). This
conclusion was supported by a screen-level health risk assessment (“HRA”) demonstrating that
the Project’s DPM emissions would create an excess cancer risk of approximately 66.8 in one
million. However, City staff claims that the screening level tool used by Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr.
Hagemann, AERSCREEN, is “crude” and “substantially overstates impacts.” Dr. Rosenfeld and
Mr. Hagemann explain that “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.” (Ex. B, p. 1.) Thus, in accordance with EPA guidelines, Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr.
Hagemann prepared a conservative screening-level HRA, the purpose of which is “to determine
whether more refined modeling is warranted.” (Id. at p. 2.) “If the results indicate a potential for
significant health risk impacts, [such as here] a more refined HRA should then be conducted in
AERMOD.” (Id.) City staff provides no substantial evidence to rebut the findings made in the
HRA prepared by Dr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann but instead makes unsubstantiated claims
about AERSCREEN.
Importantly, City staff ignores guidance from the Office of Environmental Health
Assessment (“OEHHA”), which recommends that all warehouse projects lasting longer than two
months prepare an HRA. (Id.) “This recommendation is intended to ensure that the health risks
from increased diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants from warehouse-related
activities are fully disclosed and mitigated.” (Id.) The screening-level HRA prepared by Dr.
Rosenfeld and Mr. Hagemann along with guidance are substantial evidence demonstrating that
November 17, 2025
Supplemental Comment on IS/MND for Rome Hill Commercial Project
City of Lake Elsinore
Page 6 of 6
the Project have a significant air quality impact requiring further analysis and mitigation in an
EIR.
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
EXHIBIT A
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
City of Lake Elsinore
130 South Main Street
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 14 October 2025
RE: Rome Hill Commercial
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to reply to the City of Lake Elsinore’s responses to my comments on the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the proposed Rome
Hill Commercial project. To be clear, I reply to the City’s responses to Kylah Staley’s
summary characterizations of my comments, as the City responded to none of my
original comments directly.
Before I begin my replies to specific comments, I point out that the anonymous person
who prepared the replies to Ms. Staley’s summary of my comments was probably not a
biologist. An opinion offered by a person who is not competent to render an opinion on
a subject does not amount to substantial evidence )Jensen v City of Santa Rosa (2018)
23 CA5th 877, 894; Cathay Mortuary, Inc. v San Francisco Planning Comm'n (1989)
207 CA3d 275, 281). Nevertheless, I prepared replies to the City’s responses.
In my replies below, I further separate some responses by letter. I do this for responses
to multiple comments or issues under one response number.
Response 3-2a: The City does not concur with the conclusion presented in this
paragraph. First, the data provided in the October 2, 2025 does not contain basic
information regarding the habitat that occurs on the site.
Reply: A commenter does not have to agree with the City’s characterization of the
project site’s “habitat.” I wrote in my comment letter of 29 September 2025, “The site is
primarily annual grassland with some ornamental plants and bordered by a eucalyptus
grove to the north.” Additionally, I included Noriko Smallwood’s photos of the site, and
I summarized her detections of 42 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 13 special-
status species. The species detected at the site are more effective descriptors of habitat,
as it was noted in my comment letter that habitat is defined as that that portion of the
environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et
al. 1997). In other words, habitat is defined by the species use of the environment and
the observer’s ability to measure that use (Smallwood 2002). The information I reported
about habitat on the site was pretty basic, but I reported habitat of more species than
did the City’s consultant, HES (2022).
Response 3-2b: This site does not contain any trees and the whole 6.8 acre site is
identified as being disturbed (ruderal) habitat. This disturbed condition allowed the
2
County Joint Project Review (JPR) to conclude that no onsite habitat needed protection
and other than paying standard fees, the project would comply with the County’s
Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Refer to the
attached JPR findings. Due to past human disturbances, the project site has no intrinsic
value to support Native Species, including the sensitive species observed in the vicinity
of the site.
Reply: The County Joint Project Review (JPR) came to an unsound conclusion, relying
on presumption rather than on sound evidence. Like so many other sites Noriko and I
have surveyed for wildlife (see Smallwood and Smallwood 2023), the project site is
indeed disturbed. But the site’s condition does not preclude the use of it by many species
of wildlife. Wildlife make the best of whatever degraded conditions cities leave for them,
and the proof of that is in the species we consistently find on disturbed sites. Despite its
condition, Noriko detected 42 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 13 special-status
species. She photographed members of many of these species, and I included some of
her photos in my comment letter of 29 September 2025. All this pointed out, a hallmark
of the scientific method is the repeatability of results, so I suggest that the City retain a
qualified biologist to return to the project site for another survey. I reported Noriko’s
methods well enough for another biologist to repeat her surveys to determine whether a
similar number and composition of species would be detected.
As I commented in my letter of 29 September 2025, Smallwood and Smallwood (2023)
reports on the results of an experiment in which Noriko and I surveyed project sites
before and after half of them were developed and the other half not yet developed. Many
of the sites were just as disturbed as the Rome Hill project site, but in all cases they still
supported wildlife, and in all cases where development preceded our second survey, we
were able to measure substantial decreases in species richness and in animal
abundance. That the effects of development on wildlife were highly significant is ample
evidence that disturbed sites support wildlife until they are converted to impervious
surfaces and standing structures. Anyhow, the City’s presumption that a disturbed site
cannot support sensitive species of wildlife has been refuted many times by survey
results.
Response 3-2c: Although the findings in Comment Letter 3, for both biological
resources and air quality, utilize input from qualified professionals, their focus is too
narrow to represent “substantial evidence.
Reply: My focus was on wildlife, which for an ecologist might be regarded as narrow,
but which in fact is rather broad. There are many species of wildlife, each with its own
natural history and ecological requirements. The habitat concept alone is rather a broad,
complex topic, and then there are many additional topics such as habitat fragmentation,
carrying capacity, mutualisms, predator-prey dynamics, the effects of anthropogenic
sources of mortality, and I can go on. My focus is hardly narrow, but even if it was, that
is not a disqualifier of my testimony as substantial. My testimony is based on what
Noriko found at the site, and my impact predictions are based on inferences drawn from
measurements made in research studies, some of which I have been personally involved
with over many years.
3
Response 3-2d: Observing any wildlife at the project site, does not examine whether
the site is inhabited by these species or whether they were just flying over the site to get
to Lake Elsinore or other native habitat within the area. For example, the siting of
California gull does not demonstrate that the site is occupied by the gull. Logic would
equate the gull’s presence to the presence of the adjacent body of water, Lake Elsinore.
No evidence is provided in this Comment Letter that the site provides occupiable habitat
for this or the other species. Similarly, the Nuttal’s woodpecker is dependent upon the
presence of trees for habitat. The project site has no trees. As a final example, several bat
species were identified as cruising the site, but no bat habitat or nesting areas were
identified to exist on the project site due to its disturbed nature. This is because the site
has no native habitat that provides the primary constituent elements to support these
species. Yes, the six+ acre site may provide some food resources, such as the western
fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) identified in the site General Biological
Assessment, but to extrapolate the habitat on this site as representing occupied habitat
is not supported by any documentation within the Comment Letter.
Reply: As I commented in my letter of 29 September 2025, the best scientific definition
of habitat is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for
survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). The best determiner of habitat is the
observation of that part of the environment that is used by members of a species
(Smallwood 2002). Although there are exceptions I will discuss below, just about
wherever we find animals of a given species, we find evidence of the species’ habitat.
Wild animals do not visit places that are unneeded for survival and reproduction unless
forced, so in most cases it is reasonable to assume that where we see them is where they
need to be. The response acknowledges that animals seen on the project site were likely
there to forage. Finding sufficient forage is essential to both survival and reproduction.
And so is space within which to travel and to find opportunities for refuge or socializing.
The bats the response refers to as “cruising the site” were not just cruising the site.
Noriko detected them only because they been calling. It is the calls that are detected by
our acoustic bat detectors. Bats call at frequencies outside the range of human hearing,
so we rely on technology to pick them up. And the bat calls that are detected by our
technology are foraging calls. The bats that Noriko detected were foraging, which is
essential for their survival and reproduction.
The medium through which bats forage is the gaseous atmosphere that is too often
ignored by humans, especially by non-biologists. But ecologists have devoted an entire
subdiscipline of ecology to the atmosphere as essential habitat (it is an essential part of
human habitat as well). The subdiscipline is aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008), and that
portion of the atmosphere that is most actively used by wildlife is known as the
aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats
and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and
where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved
wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the
aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat. That portion of the aerosphere that overlaps the
4
project site is habitat to the gulls that Noriko saw using it. And it is also habitat to the
Nuttall’s woodpecker that Noriko observed flying through it.
The response fails to recognize all aspects of habitat that occurs on the project site,
including its portion of the aerosphere. It also fails the consistency test in that it implies
that the animals Noriko observed on the project site did not qualify as evidence of
“occupied habitat.” The City’s standard, which it applies to me but not to HES (2022), is
that the occurrence of habitat is not sufficient because it has to be occupied habitat. No
such standard exists in the CEQA. Regardless, observations of animals in their habitat
ought to qualify as evidence of occupation of that habitat.
Response 3-3: The project description is accurate, but spare. It does not provide any
data that supports the biology or air quality analysis provided in the Comment Letter.
Reply: My comment letter of 29 September 2025 includes a Table of wildlife species
detected on the project site along with notes of what some of the animals were doing
when observed, and it includes photos of some of the animals observed and sonograms
of some of the bat species detected. Furthermore, Noriko’s rate of species detections was
modeled to more completely interpret the data. With use of 95% confidence intervals, I
compared Noriko’s findings to our findings from other project sites in the region, and
with use of an analytical bridge, I compared her findings to my findings at a more
extensively studied research site. My comment letter was not spare in its description of
the project site, though I acknowledge that more could always be reported.
For example, I could have compared Noriko’s findings of the number of species detected
to the numbers we have detected in surveys across three western states. In comparison
to our 309 reconnaissance surveys among project sites that have been proposed across
three western states, Noriko’s survey tally of vertebrate wildlife species at the Rome Hill
Commercial site exceeded our mean of 30 species by 1.4-fold (Figure 1). I could continue
adding evidence that the project site is habitat to many species of wildlife, and
additional surveys would certainly contribute more evidence, but none of this additional
evidence is going to detract from the obvious conclusion that due to the inherently high
species richness of the project area, many species of wildlife make use of the habitat on
the project site.
5
Figure 1.
Histogram of our
reconnaissance
survey tallies of
vertebrate wildlife
species among
project sites in
California, Oregon
and Arizona. The
red line denotes the
normal curve fit to
the data. Noriko’s
survey tally
exceeded our mean
of 30 species
detected by 40%.
Response 3-4: The Legal Standard discussion on page 2 appears to be a reasonable
summary. However as noted in response to comment 3-2, the finding announced in this
comment does not represent a “fair argument” because it is based on a flawed and
incomplete analysis of the project site’s habitat and a total lack of data demonstrating
that the site serves as occupied habitat supporting any of the species identified and
discussed in the remainder of this comment letter.
Reply: This response merely repeats false assertions of lack of data in support of my
conclusion that the project site is habitat to many species of wildlife. Again, I invite the
City to send a qualified biologist back to the project site for another survey. Our findings
are repeatable, but the City ought to check on them if doubtful. As for the City’s
accusation that the analysis is flawed and incomplete, it would help to explain what the
City would expect to see of an analysis that is unflawed and complete.
In my comment letter of 29 September 2025, I reported the dates and times of Noriko’s
surveys, as well as the durations of her surveys. Noriko started her first survey at 06:30
hours, which is an ideal time for detecting wildlife, but HES (2022) started its survey at
noon, which is a time of day when wildlife are less active than in the morning or evening
(Figure 2) – a pattern any experienced wildlife ecologist ought to know. Furthermore,
HES (2022) does not report its survey duration, so no context of survey effort is
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Vertebrate species detected
(California, Oregon, Arizona)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Number of study sitesNoriko’s survey tally (42) of
vertebrate wildlife species at
Rome Hill Commercial
6
provided against which to assess HES’s findings. Nor is there any comparison of HES’s
survey findings to survey findings made elsewhere, again denying the reader any means
to interpret the meaning of HES’s detection of 10 wildlife species. Is the finding of 10
wildlife species typical of HES? The City’s criticism of my supposed flawed, incomplete
analysis is misdirected, and it should be directed to its consultant report – HES (2022).
Figure 2. Tallies of vertebrate
wildlife species detected in 2-hour
reconnaissance surveys at
different times of day, where
tallies are represented as
proportions of the maximum count
of species over all five surveys per
research site.
Response 3-5a: Dr. Smallwood was not provided sufficient information to evaluate
the habitat value of this six+ acre highly disturbed habitat and his team did not conduct
onsite evaluations to determine if the habitat could support any of the species observed
in the site’s vicinity.
Reply: This portion of the response makes little sense. Perhaps it is misworded. What
information was I supposed to be provided to assess habitat on the project site? Noriko
provided me with much more information than did HES (2022), and in doing so she did
conduct an onsite evaluation. The City’s response indicates that the City did not read my
comment letter of 29 September 2025.
Response 3-5b: My office is in a 100% urban area and California gulls fly around it
during winter when the rainwater pools. That observation of gull presence does not
equate to the paved parking lot supporting the ponds of being a significant habitat for
the gulls, the loss of which could be considered a significant biological resources Impact.
All of the species identified as appearing in the project area, including the bats, are
common in suburbs of southern California. To conflate a visual appearance near a
project site with habitat occupancy is to exaggerate the actual value of the onsite habitat
at Rome Hill. Again, no evidence of sustained use of the habitat on the Rome Hill
property by any of the listed species has been documented or demonstrated in this
Comment Letter, only conjecture.
Hour of day
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Wildlife species as proportion of max number countedVacaville
Rancho Cordova
Time of day
imparts more
effect than does temperature
2-hour surveys
7
Reply: Sustained use is not a CEQA standard for assessing habitat, and certainly not
one that was exercised by the City’s survey of the project site. One biologist from HES
visited the project site for an unknown portion of one day, so observing sustained use
was not an objective of HES (2022), nor did HES (2022) state that it was an objective.
The response’s anecdote about California gulls flying around pooled water on a parking
lot goes to a shortfall in habitat assessment that I addressed in Smallwood (2002), and
which provides an opportunity for a follow-up to my replies under Response 3-2d. One
must be careful in interpreting the meaning of where members of a species are
observed. An animal might have to move across inhospitable terrain or through
hazardous airspace to reach a needed destination. Much of my research addresses this
very problem, such as birds and bats flying through the airspaces that are swept by wind
turbine blades. Another useful anecdote was a burrowing owl recently rescued from the
Pacific Ocean, where it was found swimming two miles off the California coast. The
burrowing owl had been migrating, but it ran out of energy while over the sea. The water
surface of the Pacific Ocean is not burrowing owl habitat; observing it there does not
qualify the Pacific Ocean as burrowing owl habitat. On this point I agree with the City,
but only so far as it is reasonable to determine that an animal’s observed location is not
within its habitat. As for the California gulls flying over the project site, the City earlier
acknowledged in another response that the project site is located next to the shoreline of
Lake Elsinore. The juxtaposition of the project site with Lake Elsinore makes it
reasonable to assume that the gulls flying over the project site were doing so because the
project site is an extension of its habitat.
Another example would be Sierran treefrogs moving onto asphalt roads during rainy
nights, perhaps attracted to the glistening wet roads under the illusion they are pools of
water. Another example is snakes settling on roads to warm themselves, and another is
waterbirds attempting to land on arrays of photovoltaic solar panels which generate a
“Lake Effect.” In these situations, roads and solar panels would be considered ecological
traps rather than habitat. However, there is nothing about the project site that would
suggest it is acting as an ecological trap to the wildlife that Noriko observed there.
Although no such standard exists under the CEQA, I would not oppose a sustained-use
threshold for determining whether a site is habitat for a species. Another threshold
would be a ratio of observed to expected counts of members of a species that is greater
than 1.0, meaning there is a measured selection of a particular part of the environment,
or an occurrence that is other than random or uniform in distribution (this said, a
regular distribution could be indicative of a strong degree of selection of a site due to its
expression of social rules to achieve a regular spacing; see Smallwood 2002). However,
these types of thresholds would require a much greater survey effort than is typically
committed by lead agencies, and certainly much greater than was attempted by HES
(2022) at the project site. The CEQA attempts to strike a balance between the collection
of information needed for the review and the cost of doing so, so as part of that balance,
survey efforts tend to be brief – often too brief. The appropriate approach to habitat
assessment in the face of this balance is to err on the side of caution when interpreting
wildlife observations, consistent with the precautionary principle in risk analysis
involving rare or precious resources (National Research Council 1986). For any gull or
8
Nuttall’s woodpecker or any other animal seen on the project site, it should be assumed
that the animal needed to be there unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
And if the animal needed to be there, then the site is habitat for that species.
Response 3-6: Dr. Smallwood states: “the evidence is overwhelming that the Project
Site provides habitat to multiple special status species of wildlife.” This statement is not
accurate. The surveys simply noted the presence of these species, mostly flying species,
in the vicinity of the site. For example, the evidence of the turkey vulture was not
supported by identifying and evaluating any killed species on the property that the
vulture may have been feeding upon. As indicated in Hernandez’s biology study of the
site the turkey vulture was observed in the project area, but no small mammals were
identified that might be predated and then also served as a meal for the vulture. Again,
the site does not contain any natural habitat that would serve as habitat to support the
species seen in the project area.
Reply: I will comment again that the evidence is overwhelming that the project site
provides habitat to multiple special-status species of wildlife. One does not need to see
the forage of a turkey vulture to determine that its presence at a place was most likely
purposeful, and foraging is not the only reason for a turkey vulture to be located where it
is observed. Like any other animal species, turkey vultures are also social and they are
selective over their travel routes. Noriko noted that the turkey vulture(s) she observed
was in the process of circling over the site. Turkey vultures often circle in thermals to
gain lift, and I have observed many doing so over dirt fields but rarely if ever doing over
impervious surfaces. One can speculate various reasons why Noriko saw turkey
vulture(s) on the site, but the reason is not as important as the fact it was there.
Response 3-7: This comment is a continuation of the list of species observed near the
project site, but no correlation of these species with habitat in the project vicinity is
provided.
Reply: Correlation is a degree of change in one measured variable relative to the change
in another measured variable. Perhaps the response misuses the term, correlation, or
perhaps the City expects that Noriko should have performed a landscape-level study to
measure use and availability of candidate habitat patches including the project site. I
would prefer the landscape-level study, but as I commented earlier, there is no CEQA
standard requiring this level of study and HES (2022) certainly did not perform one. I
will note, however, that correlation would not be the appropriate term for a landscape
study, either; it would be use and availability analysis where the objective is to measure
the strengths of habitat associations (Smallwood 2002).
Response 3-8a: Actually, this statement is also inaccurate. Several of the same species
identified in the list of sensitive species provided in this Comment Letter were observed
in the Hernandez study. Specifically, the red-tailed hawk and the turkey vulture were
identified in the original study.
Reply: By using the term “also,” the Response implies that the misstatement originated
from me or Ms. Staley. However, as I quoted in my comment letter, it is the IS/MND (p.
9
44) that claims, “Based on the site biological survey conducted by Hernandez
Environmental Services, no evidence of any sensitive species was identified during the
site survey.” It is the IS/MND that claims HES had not detected any sensitive species,
which the response acknowledges is inaccurate.
Response 3-8b:However, what was not done in the Hernandez report was the
unsupported extrapolation that the disturbed habitat would serve as suitable habitat to
support these species. The Comment Letter’s conclusion that the site supports these
species is not supported (demonstrated) in the studies. There is no discussion in the
Comment Letter that the habitat has any of the constituent elements required to support
the identified species as there is no discussion of the habitat that exists on the site.
Reply: No extrapolation was made to conclude that Noriko’s observations of animals at
the project site were present for any other reason than they needed to be there for their
survival and reproduction. Again, the standard of interpretation of observations made
during a reconnaissance survey is the precautionary principle. It is reasonable to assume
that the species detected at the site were present at the site because the site provides
habitat. If the CEQA required a higher standard for determining the presence of habitat,
then much greater survey effort would be needed than a simple reconnaissance survey,
and much more would be needed than the survey completed by HES (2022).
The response identifies suitable habitat as the standard that is needed, rather than just
habitat. However, there is no such thing as suitable habitat, just as there is no such thing
as unsuitable habitat (see Krausman 2016). By definition, habitat is a suitable portion of
the environment to a species, so a portion of the environment that is unsuitable to the
species would not be habitat. Suitable habitat is redundant and lacks any counterpart,
and therefore is nonsensical.
Response 3-9: This statement is not accurate and incorporates an error of omission.
Specifically, Dr. Smallwood indicates that there are some birds that nest on the ground.
This statement is accurate, but neither the Hernandez study or the study supporting the
Comment Letter identify any ground nesting birds. At best this comment reaches to
make a point, but has no facts to support it’s intended point for the project site. Also,
using a site in Murrieta as a comparison of nesting probability, without identifying the
type of location and habitat, is misleading. Again, the lack of trees and natural habitat at
the project site makes this comparison flawed and irrelevant.
Reply: As I commented in my letter of 29 September 2025, in no way should the
species detected by HES (2022) or by Noriko be considered any sort of inventory of the
local wildlife community. Most species that occur at the project site were not detected
because survey personnel were not there often enough or at the right time to detect
them. Consider, for example, a site that I surveyed 41 times over three years. To
accumulate detections of 149 diurnally active species, I needed 158.5 hours of survey
time across 41 surveys, and I still fell 31 species short of an inventory of diurnally active
species (Figure 3). Knowing that HES and Noriko detected only fractions of the wildlife
community, there is no inaccuracy or omission in my assurance that multiple bird
10
species nest on the ground or in ornamental shrubs and trees along the project’s
perimeter. Nor is there any “reach” on my part.
Figure 3. A model fit to my
cumulative number of
vertebrate wildlife species
detections with increase
hours of daylight survey time
predicts 180 species of
diurnally active vertebrate
species make use of this
research site. I was 31
species short of the inventory
even after 158.5 hours of
survey effort. Noriko’s 5.45
daylight survey hours at the
project site would have
yielded detections of 60
species at my project site, or
33% of the species predicted
by my model. HES detected
10 species at the project site,
but I cannot bridge HES’s
results to my research
findings because HES (2022)
does not report its survey
time.
Moreover, Noriko did indeed observe birds on the project site that are known for
nesting on the ground. Mourning doves often nest on the ground. Birds that nest in
shrubs or hedges such as those along the project site’s perimeter include black phoebe,
California scrub-jay, bushtit, Bewick’s wren, house finch, California towhee, and orange-
crowned warbler (near the ground), all of which Noriko observed at the site. However,
Noriko surveyed the site in September, which is not the avian breeding season. HES
(2022) surveyed in November. It should not be expected that either survey effort would
have documented ground nesting or any other type of nesting on the project site,
because the season was not appropriate for doing so.
Response 3-10a: It seems pretty obvious that Dr. Smallwood has not examined a
detailed aerial photo of the Rome Hill project site. On the south side of the property is
Grand Avenue a broad paved road that is the primary access into the City of Lake
Elsinore on the south side of the Lake. Abutting on the south side of Grand Avenue is
existing industrial/commercial development that cuts off access to the property across
the street. The implication of the Dr. Smallwood’s observations is that the animals using
the site for wildlife movement is coming from Grand Avenue, which is, of course,
absurd.
Hours of surveyCumulative number of wildlife species detected0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1800
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 461
Actual count of species
All vertebrate wildlife species
HES (2022)
Noriko’s daylight survey hours,
which yielded detections of 35 species
11
Reply: The response claims that I characterized the project site as a wildlife movement
corridor, and that I assumed wildlife moved to or from the site by crossing Grand
Avenue. I made no such characterization. I did not assert that the site is a movement
corridor, and I made no mention of Grand Avenue. My comment included the
statement, “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.”
Most of the animals selecting the project site for their movement would have no
problem negotiating Grand Avenue because they are members of volant species.
The above pointed out, it would not be at all absurd to assume that nonvolant animals
cross roads, or that they sometimes travel along them (see Photos 25 and 26 of my 29
September 2025 comment letter, and see Photos 1 and 2 below). That animals often
cross roads is also in evidence by the many that have been documented to have not
survived the attempt. Most animals that attempt road crossings survive the attempt, but
too many do not. My comment letter cites some of the literature on traffic-caused
wildlife mortality, which is one of the largest anthropogenic causes of wildlife mortality.
Just these past 14 months, my near-daily searches of 2.7 km of local, collector, and
minor arterial roads in my city of residence have revealed 391 wildlife fatalities, and
another part of my study has revealed that these 391 fatalities composed only 45% of the
true number of fatalities. (The other 55% of fatalities would have been missed by me or
more often removed by scavengers before I had the opportunity to detect them.
Additionally, an unknown number of collision victims would have been obliterated
under truck tires or carried in the grills of the cars or trucks that struck them.) The
crudely adjusted mortality estimate would therefore be 889 fatalities, or 322/km. This
mortality is lower than that of the Vasco Road study, but it is nevertheless substantial.
Along the way I have rescued snakes and Sierran tree frogs and western toads that were
attempting to cross roads. The City’s assumption that roads pose hard barriers to
wildlife is in error.
On this issue and others, the responses rely too much on speculation, and not enough on
scientific inference. Rather than speculating on how or why the project site cannot
possibly support wildlife, the City would better serve the CEQA’s primary objectives by
drawing inferences from the scientific literature, making better use of available species
occurrence databases (see my comment letter for more on this), and collecting
appropriate data from field surveys. It would also help to assign a trained biologist to
respond to comments prepared by experts such as myself.
12
Photo 1. Great-tailed grackle crosses a road in Imperial County, California.
Photo 2. A desert cottontail crosses a road in Murietta, California.
13
Response 3-10b: In addition, the properties on both sides of the project site contain
limited development, substantial open space and probably most important trees. It is
possible that some wildlife cross the property, but it must be kept in mind that the site
has been used for storage of equipment in the past has had a very disruptive history of
human use. Refer to the Phase 1 ESA for a discussion of historic use in the Initial Study.
Reply: How the project site was managed in the past is irrelevant to the CEQA review,
as the review is supposed to address the existing environmental setting. Presently the
site is open space. Across this open space, Noriko observed birds and bats flying. Flying
is a form of wildlife movement. The response only speculates that surrounding land uses
somehow thwarts wildlife movement or diminishes the site’s importance to wildlife
movement, but actually the developments only heighten the site’s importance to wildlife
movement by channeling wildlife movement across the only open space that remains –
the project site -- and by providing one of the last remaining opportunities in the area
for volant wildlife to stopover or stage during dispersal or migration. (See above about
the misuse of speculation.)
Response 3-10c: Fundamentally, the observation by the Hernandez team regarding
use of the site as a “wildlife corridor” is more accurate:
Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise
separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbances. The
project area was evaluated for its function as a wildlife corridor that species would use
to move between wildlife habitat zones. Usually, mountain canyons or riparian
corridors are used by wildlife as corridors. The project area is relatively flat with a
small slope on the northern portion of the site. The site is disturbed and surrounded by
a brick wall along the western border and a fence along the eastern, northern, and
southern borders. No wildlife movement corridors were found to be present on the
project site.
Reply: A more accurate, scientific definition of the wildlife corridor concept can be
found in a peer-reviewed paper that specifically addresses the corridor definition in
science, in conservation planning, and in environmental consulting (Smallwood 2015).
The boxing-in of the project site by developments north and south of the site
inadvertently transformed the project site into a wildlife movement corridor, consistent
with the most common and defensible use of the term (see Smallwood 2015, which
includes citations to additional literature on this topic).
Regarding HES’s (2022) conclusion that no wildlife movement corridors were found,
my comment letter points out that “This conclusion is made in the absence of any
program of observation to characterize wildlife movement, and it is therefore
unfounded.” HES (2022) fails to describe any method that might have been used to
support its conclusion.
Response 3-11a: This comment suffers from a similar flaw as that for assumptions
about the previous discussions of observations being equated to habitat suitability.
14
Reply: This part of the response makes an assumption about my having made certain
assumptions. My comment about wildlife mortality that would be caused by project-
generated vehicle traffic states no assumptions about observations equating to habitat
suitability, and as I commented earlier, habitat suitability is a nonsensical term.
Response 3-11b: The ability to predict that animal/vehicle collisions and death can
only be accurately predicted when all of the assumptions are stated.
Reply: This part of the response is not true. Whether assumptions are stated has no
bearing on the accuracy of a prediction. This said, it is helpful to state assumptions so
that the reader can assess the basis of the prediction. For the record, my first
assumption is that the estimate of collision mortality at the Vasco Road study site was
accurate. There is always the possibility that the adjustment factors to account for
searcher error and carcass persistence were inaccurate or biased in some way, and any
errors or biases here would affect the accuracy of the mortality estimate (Smallwood et
al. 2018). Another assumption is that traffic-caused mortality is proportional to VMT; if
it is not, then there is the potential for inaccuracy in my mortality prediction. A third
assumption is that wildlife expose themselves to traffic along the roads that would be
used by project-generated traffic, not necessarily at the same rates (animals per km) that
occurred along Vasco Road during the Vasco Road wildlife mortality study, but in terms
of the total number of animals crossing all reaches of roads traversed by project-
generated traffic. The Vasco Road mortality was estimated for a 2.5-mile reach of road,
whereas my mortality prediction would apply to all reaches of all roads that would be
traveled by project-generated traffic, some of these reaches of road likely located many
miles away from the project site.
Rather than addressing the issue I raised in my comment letter, the response goes only
to the accuracy of my mortality prediction. Having spent 36 years measuring,
estimating, and predicting wildlife collision mortality, and all the while researching how
to improve prediction accuracy, I would be pleasantly surprised if my prediction of
project-generated traffic-caused wildlife mortality proved accurate within 10% of my
point prediction (but it might indeed prove that accurate, if it was to be validated with a
scientific program of fatality searches). However, the accuracy of my prediction is not as
important as its demonstration of the magnitude of the potential impact. Even if my
prediction proved to be a 100% over-prediction, the unmitigated deaths of 352
vertebrate animals per year would qualify as a significant impact. The IS/MND does not
analyze this potential impact at all. The City’s response merely complains about my
assumptions while wordlessly accepting that wildlife would be killed by project-
generated traffic; note that the response makes no claim that the impact would not
occur. The City has so far failed to seriously address the issue.
Response 3-11c: Given the level of historic traffic along major roadways (Grand
Avenue and I-15), it is probable that vertebrate wildlife population adjacent to these
roadways has been depleted and the number fatalities identified in the Comment Letter
is way over estimated. The only way to make a reasonable forecast is to use current
values for such fatalities, volume of overall traffic on these roadways, and current
15
animal population densities of adjacent areas, which are highly developed and not all
bounded by natural habitat. The prediction as presented deserves to be ignored.
Reply: As for the City’s speculation about whether wildlife populations along the City’s
roads have been degraded, the City is not considering that degraded populations would
be indicative of cumulative impacts of past and ongoing projects in t he area. These
would be evidence of cumulative impacts that the IS/MND determines would be less-
than-significant even with the project’s contributions. (The City’s argument represents a
typical outcome of the use of speculation, in that it reveals inconsistencies.) If the
populations of wildlife are already degraded along roadways to be traveled by project-
generated traffic, then wildlife mortality caused by this traffic would be even more likely
to result in population-level impacts and would be even more significant.
Nor is the City considering that many miles of roadway would be used by the project-
generated traffic. The IS/MND predicts a daily VMT that translates to 1,653,085 annual
VMT. These 1,653,085 annual miles traveled would not be restricted to Grand Avenue
and I-5, as the response assumes. Much of the traffic would also be along rural roads,
some of which would be used as shortcuts to avoid traffic on the major arterials and
highways.
It is possible that my prediction of traffic-caused wildlife mortality is an overprediction
or an underprediction, but at least I made a prediction. The City has not seriously
addressed the issue, and it is not addressed it at all in the IS/MND.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented
skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat
concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
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.
HES (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.
16
Krausman, P. R. 2016. Another Plea for Standard Terminology. Journal of Wildlife
Management 80:1143–1144. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21121
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
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problem-
solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83 -95 in
Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.
Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press,
Covello, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts,
challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland,
USA.
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, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas.
2018. Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of
Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.
EXHIBIT B
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
November 13, 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 October 2025 Staff Report (“Staff Report”) and 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”). After our review of the Staff Report, we find that the Staff
Report is insufficient in addressing some of our concerns regarding the Project’s health risk impacts. As
we asserted in our September 30, 2025, comment letter, an EIR should be prepared to adequately
mitigate the Project’s potential impacts.
Air Quality Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
As discussed in our comment letter on September 30, 2025, the IS/MND failed to adequately evaluate
the Project’s potential health risk impacts. For the reasons discussed below, we maintain our comment
that the IS/MND is inadequate and recommend that an EIR is prepared to adequately evaluate the
Project’s potential health risk impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
In response to our comments, the Staff Report makes several incorrect arguments to undermine our
screening-level health risk assessment (“HRA”). First, the Staff Report states that “the analysis
performed by SWAPE in Exhibit B of the letter uses a crude screening level model that substantially
overstates impacts” (p. 16). As stated in our comment letter on September 30, 2025, 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. Screening-level assessments generally rely on readily available data and
2
conservative assumptions to estimate upper-bound exposures for sensitive receptors.1 Instead of
recognizing the purpose of a screening-level analysis, the Staff Report erroneously dismisses our
AERSCREEN model on the basis that it “substantially overstate impacts.” This mischaracterizes the
purpose of a screening-level assessment and effectively ignores the next step in the standard tiered risk
assessment process.
The Staff Report continues by criticizing specific parameters used in our screening-level HRA. For
example, the Staff Report states that “the AERSCREEN model, by its very design, cannot account for this
type of geographic distribution of emissions” (p. 16). We acknowledge this limitation. As stated above,
AERSCREEN is a conservative, screening-level tool intended to provide an initial assessment of potential
health risk impacts—not to model the spatial distribution of emissions in detail. The purpose of such a
screening-level analysis is to determine whether more refined modeling is warranted. If the results
indicate a potential for significant health risk impacts, a more refined HRA should then be conducted in
AERMOD, which can account for geographically distributed emissions sources (e.g., off-road
construction equipment and on-road truck emissions), temporal variability (daytime vs. nighttime
operations), and site-specific meteorological data (wind speed and wind direction).2
Lastly, the Staff Report fails to acknowledge that the preparation of an HRA is required pursuant to the
California Department of Justice (“CA DOJ”) guidelines for warehouse best practices. The CA DOJ
recommends that all potential warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA in accordance with the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.3 This recommendation is intended to ensure that
the health risks from increased diesel particulate matter and other toxic air contaminants from
warehouse-related activities are fully disclosed and mitigated. Consistent with these recommendations,
it is now standard practice for warehouse projects in California to prepare both construction and
operational HRAs to evaluate potential short- and long-term health risks.4,5,6
Accordingly, the Project’s decision to disregard the CA DOJ’s recommendations—and its failure to
connect the project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences—does not align with the good-
faith effort required by CEQA. By omitting a quantitative HRA, the IS/MND’s analysis is incomplete and
results in an inadequate evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts.
1 “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.
2 “AERMOD Implementation Guide.” U.S. EPA, November 2024, available at:
https://gaftp.epa.gov/Air/aqmg/SCRAM/models/preferred/aermod/aermod_implementation_guide.pdf
3 “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.
4 “Locust Gateway Development Project.” CEQAnet, September 2025, available at:
https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024061274/2.
5 “FSRE Industrial Concord Project.” CEQAnet, September 2025, available at:
https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2024070591/2.
6 “Temescal Valley Commerce Center.” CEQAnet, June 2025, available at:
https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2023010612/2.
3
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CVAttachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
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 A
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 B
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