American Canyon City Council
December 6, 2022

16 920
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
commute alone (multiply by .95).120 Using these assumptions, the Project would generate 4,944 daily commute trips, more than 2,000 trips over the number estimated by the DEIR using the unsupported trip rates in the trip generation analysis.

Finally, the DEIR claims that the truck trip rate assumed for the Project (.22 trips per 1,000 square feet) was estimated using the Manual rates and “validated using local vehicle classification counts conducted in June 2021.”121 As Mr.

Marshall points out, though, the classification counts tell us only about the truck percentages in traffic in the vicinity of the proposed Project. “These percentages tell us nothing about truck trip generation for the proposed facility.”122 Ultimately then, the trips lengths and trip generation rates used by the DEIR in its analysis of transportation impacts are unexplained, unsupported and/or contradicted by assumptions applied elsewhere in the DEIR. For all the reasons discussed above (and in the Marshall comments), the finding that the Project will not have significant transportation impacts—especially with respect to VMT—is not supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, these unsupported trip length and trip generation figures are key variables in the modeling used by the DEIR to analyze Project GHG and air quality impacts.123 Given that the trip figures are unreasonably low, the modeling underestimates the Project’s emissions of air pollutants and GHG. The City must therefore revise and recirculate the EIR with valid, supported trip length and trip generation estimates and using those new figures, re-analyze VMT, air quality and GHG impacts.

While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”124 As the courts have explained, “a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”125 That is precisely the case here. 120 Ibid. 121 DEIR, pg. 3.12-11. 122 Marshall Comments, pgs. 5-6. 123 See e.g., DEIR at 3.2-50; App, B note 9, pg. 3. 124 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12. 125 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water NSRRD

16 921
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

The DEIR’s GHG analysis states that the Project would have significant impacts if it would (1) generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (GHG-1), (2) conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG-2), (3) result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (GHG-3), or (4) conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.126 Applying each of these significance criteria, the DEIR finds that the Project would not have significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions.

As discussed below, these conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.

1. Impact GHG-1
The DEIR analyzes whether the Project would generate GHGs that may have a significant impact on the environment by applying the CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts, recently adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”).127 These thresholds set forth specific criteria for determining whether new land use development projects contribute their “fair share”128 of what is required to meet California’s goal of carbon-neutrality by 2045. BAAQMD’s thresholds require that new projects must incorporate either A or B from the following:

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946.
126 DEIR, pg. 3.6-40.
127 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en (“BAAQMD Thresholds”) 128 See, Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 220-23.

NSRRD

17 18
922
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).129 In analyzing the Project’s operational GHG impacts (GHG-1), the DEIR adopts these thresholds of significance, “with minor refinements.”130 The refinements recognize that, with respect to VMT, the BAAQMD Thresholds refer to residential, office or retail projects, but not industrial projects like this one. The DEIR adopts the BAAQMD approach used for office projects, i.e., whether the Project achieves a 15 percent reduction below the existing VMT per employee.131 In analyzing whether the Project satisfies this criterion, the DEIR relies solely on the VMT analysis contained in the Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) prepared for the Project.132 The DEIR asserts a “29 percent reduction in employee VMT when compared to the existing regional VMT. As discussed [in the TIS], the region’s existing average daily employee VMT is 23 miles while the proposed project’s employee VMT would be 16.24 miles.”133
As discussed in detail above, however, neither the DEIR’s VMT discussion nor the TIS on which it is based contain any analysis or information supporting the conclusion that the relevant regional average VMT is 23 miles per employee or that 129 BAAQMD Thresholds, pg. 2.
130 DEIR, pg. 3.6-44.
131 Id., pg. 3.6-45.
132 Id., pg. 3.6-56.
133 Ibid.

NSRRD

18 923
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the Project VMT will be 16.24 miles per employee. Indeed, those conclusions are contradicted by the City’s own analysis of a similar project and by the analysis performed by transportation expert Norman Marshall. Because the DEIR’s claimed 29 percent reduction in VMT is totally unsupported, the conclusion that the Project complies with the modified BAAQMD significance thresholds adopted by the City is not supported by substantial evidence.

2. Impact GHG-2
The DEIR purports to analyze the Project’s consistency with “the applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.”134 Citing BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the DEIR states that for this impact to be less than significant, the Project must demonstrate consistency with the applicable GHG emissions reduction plan.135 Like the BAAQMD Thresholds for evaluating climate impacts (set forth above), the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines define a qualified GHG reduction strategy by reference to State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.136 Section 15183.5(b) sets forth specific elements for qualified GHG emissions reductions plans that may be used in later project level analysis of cumulative GHG impacts.137 “An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures…”138
The DEIR purports to assess the Project’s GHG impacts with respect to three “applicable plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions,” i.e., the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) 2017 Scoping Plan, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) Plan Bay Area 2050, and the City of American Canyon’s Energy Efficient Climate Action Plan (“EECAP”). 139 The DEIR makes no showing that any of these is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b). Indeed, the DEIR expressly recognizes that American Canyon’s EECAP “does not meet the requirements to be considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy capable of being tiered from under CEQA 134 Id., pg., 3.6-46.
135 Ibid.
136 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en (“BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines”), Appendix D, pg. D-25. 137 14 CCR § 15183.5(b)(1).
138 14 CCR § 15183.5(b)(2).
139 DEIR, pg. 3.6-61.

NSRRD

18 19a
924
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Guidelines section 15183.5(b).”140 Nor does the DEIR contain any discussion of the elements of a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan set forth in section 15183.5(b) with respect to the 2017 Scoping Plan or MTC Plan Bay Area 2040. The DEIR fails to explain why consistency with these plans is an appropriate significance threshold for GHG impacts, and the subsequent conclusion that the Project will have no significant impacts is not supported by substantial evidence.

Even if the cited plans were qualified GHG emissions reduction plans, the DEIR’s analysis is riddled with holes and cannot support a finding of no significant impact. With respect to the MTC Plan Bay Area, the DEIR’s analysis simply makes no sense:

As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area 2050, local governments have identified planned development areas to focus growth. The project site is within the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area, which include concentrating new investment in areas that would encourage job growth. In addition, the proposed project would be developed in an area with existing infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would generally not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050.141
What is missing from this series of seemingly unrelated sentences is any mention of GHG or any specific requirements in the plan to reduce GHG emissions.

Vague assertions that the Project is “consistent with overall goals” and “generally would not conflict with land use concepts” clearly do not support a finding of consistency with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

The DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is similarly specious. The DEIR identifies a series of nine specific emissions reduction measures from the Scoping Plan and purports to analyze the Project’s consistency with those measures.142 However, immediately before listing these measures, the DEIR states “[a]s shown in Table 3.6-6, none of the measures are 140 Id., pg. 3.6-54; see also pg. 3.6-38. 141 DEIR, pg. 3.6-64. 142 Id., Table 3.6-6 at pgs. 3.6-66—3.6-68.

NSRRD

19a
19b
19c
925
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
applicable to the proposed project [emphasis added].”143 Following Table 3.6-6, the DEIR continues, “[a]s shown in Table 3.6-6, the proposed project’s implementation would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.”144 The reader is left to guess how the lack of conflict with a series of inapplicable measures demonstrates consistency with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Finally, the DEIR analyzes the Project’s consistency with American Canyon’s EECAP which, again, is admittedly not a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan.

Seven different GHG emissions reduction measures are identified, five of which are found to be inapplicable to the Project.145 The two measures applicable to the Project are (1) new construction should have solar ready roofs that are pre-wired and ready for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels and solar water heating systems and (2) the project should reduce water use through building and landscape design and improvements. 146 The DEIR claims that the Project would include roof structures designed to accommodate additional weight for rooftop solar (not that it will be pre-wired and ready for installation) and would include water efficient landscaping and include water use reduction methods. The DEIR does not say that these measures will be binding and enforceable on the Project Applicant, nor are they included as mitigation measures. Unenforceable statements that the Project will comply with these two measures contained in a non-qualified GHG emissions reduction plan cannot and does not support a finding that the Project is consistent with a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan.147

3. Impact GHG-3
The DEIR asserts that a significant impact would occur if the Project would result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary use of energy, i.e., if the Project would conflict with any of the following energy conservation goals: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.148 With respect to the first goal, the DEIR again cites the unsupported assumption that the Project will result in an 143 Id., pg. 3.6-66. 144 Id., pg. 3.6-68.
145 Id., Table 3.6-5, pgs. 3.6-64—3.6-66.
146 Id., Table 3.6-5 at pg. 3.6-66.
147 Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. 148 Id., pg. 3.6-70.

NSRRD

19c
19d
20 926
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
approximately 29 percent reduction in employee VMT from regional average estimates, and asserts that therefore overall energy consumption related to employee transportation would decrease from that experienced by the region’s current average employee transportation behavior. Once again, the DEIR builds on its unsubstantiated VMT analysis, which undermines the conclusion that the Project will decrease overall energy consumption related to employee vehicle use.

The DEIR’s finding of no significant impact with respect to Impact GHG-3 is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

Because the DEIR’s GHG analysis fails to employ appropriate significance thresholds and lacks substantial evidence supporting the finding of no significant GHG impacts, the DEIR must be revised and recirculated with an appropriate GHG analysis.

C. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Air Quality Impacts.

The DEIR’s air quality analysis concludes, with respect to health risks to sensitive receptors, that neither the Project’s construction or operation will cause a significant impact.149 This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the health risk assessment (“HRA”) on which it is based fails to consider (1) impacts from exposure to all toxic air compounds (“TAC”) in diesel exhaust, and (2) the effects on emissions from building downwash. In addition, the DEIR fails to consider and incorporate a number of feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions of air pollutants and GHGs.

1. The Health Risk Assessment Fails To Consider Impacts Of TAC Emissions.

The DEIR fails to analyze the potentially significant air quality impacts from the gaseous form of diesel exhaust. As Dr. Clark explains, diesel exhaust is composed of particulate matter as well as vapor.150 The DEIR does not account for the vapor components of diesel emissions in its HRA, and thus fails as an informational document as it does not provide an analysis of the full range of the Project’s potential health impacts.
149 DEIR, pg. 3.2-63.
150 Clark Comments, p. 4.

NSRRD

20 21
22 927
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
A lead agency’s significance determination must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.151 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.152 These standards apply to the DEIR’s analysis of the air quality impacts of the Project.

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the California Supreme Court affirmed CEQA’s mandate to protect public health and safety by holding that an EIR fails as an informational document when it fails to disclose the public health impacts from air pollutants that would be generated by a development project.153 In Sierra Club, the Supreme Court held that the EIR for the Friant Ranch Project—a 942-acre master-planned, mixed-use development with 2,500 senior residential units, 250,000 square feet of commercial space, and open space on former agricultural land in north central Fresno County—was deficient as a matter of law in its informational discussion of air quality impacts as they connect to adverse human health effects.154 As the Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”155 The Court concluded that the County’s EIR was inadequate for failing to disclose the nature and extent of public health impacts caused by the project’s air pollution. The EIR failed to comply with CEQA because the public, after reading the EIR, “would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”156 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.157
151 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b).
152 Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.
153 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522. 154 Id. at 507–508, 518–522.
155 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
156 Id. at 518. CEQA’s statutory scheme and legislative intent also include an express mandate that agencies analyze human health impacts and determine whether the “environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Public Resources Code § 21083(b)(3) (emphasis added).) Moreover, CEQA directs agencies to “take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.” (Public Resources Code § 21000(d) (emphasis added).) 157 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522.

NSRRD

22 928
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
In Berkeley Jets, the Court of Appeal held that an EIR must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.158 In that case, the Port of Oakland approved a development plan for the Oakland International Airport.159 The EIR admitted that the Project would result in an increase in the release of TACs and adopted mitigation measures to reduce TAC emissions, but failed to quantify the severity of the Project’s impacts on human health.160 The Court held that mitigation alone was insufficient, and that the Port had a duty to analyze the health risks associated with exposure to TACs.161 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”162
The failure to provide information required by CEQA makes meaningful assessment of potentially significant impacts impossible and is presumed to be prejudicial.163 Challenges to an agency’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.164 Courts reviewing challenges to an agency’s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence will “determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.”165
CARB defines diesel exhaust as a complex mixture of inorganic and organic compounds that exists in gaseous, liquid, and solid phases.166 CARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) identify 40 components of diesel exhaust as suspected human carcinogens, including formaldehyde, 1,3- butadiene, and benzo[a]pyrene.167 The gas and particle components both contribute to health risks. The inhalation unit risk factor identified by OEHHA for use in risk assessments is for the DPM fraction of diesel exhaust and not the vapor phase 158 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1369–1371.
159 Id. at 1349–1350.
160 Id. at 1364–1371.
161 Id. 162 14 C.C.R. § 15003(b).
163 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236–1237. 164 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
165 Id. (internal quotations omitted).
166 Clark Comments, p. 4.
167 Id., pgs. 4-5
NSRRD

22 929
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
components identified by CARB and U.S. EPA.168 Here, the City only used the DPM fraction of diesel exhaust in its analysis of the construction and operational emissions and ignores the presence of TACs being emitted with diesel exhaust.169 By failing to include an analysis of the additional TAC components of diesel exhaust, the DEIR does not provide a full picture of the Project’s potential health impacts and fails as an informational document as required by CEQA. The County must update the HRA with the TAC impacts included and include the results in a revised and recirculated EIR.

2. The Modeling Used For The Health Risk Assessment Failed To Account For Building Downwash.

Dr. Clark reviewed the AERMOD modeling used by the DEIR to support the HRA and found that the modeling has a significant flaw: it fails to account for the impact on air emissions from building downwash.170 Building downwash occurs as wind flows over and around buildings and impacts the dispersion of pollution from nearby sources.171 A plume of contaminants caught in the path of this flow is drawn into the wake, temporarily trapping it in a recirculating cavity.172 This downwash effect leads to higher ground-level concentration of chemicals emitted from sources and increases as the relative difference between the release height and top of the building increases.173 For the closest receptors to the Project site, the residences to the east of the Project, this difference will create an additional air quality impact that is not accounted for in the City’s analysis.174 Omission of the building downwash effect underestimates the exposure point concentrations for receptors near the building(s). The City should update its HRA to account for this effect and include the results in a revised and recirculated EIR.

3. The DEIR Fails to Consider and Implement All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Project Emissions.

In response to the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR for this Project, CARB provided a letter to the City stating that “the final design of the Project should include all existing and emerging zero-emission technologies to minimize diesel PM 168 Id., pg. 5.
169 Id., pg. 5.
170 Id., pgs. 3-4.
171 Id., pg. 4.
172 Ibid.
173 Ibid.
174 Ibid.

NSRRD

22 23
24 930
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions, as well as the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.”175 CARB also encouraged the City and the Applicant to implement the measures listed in Attachment A to its letter, in order to reduce the Project’s construction and operational air pollution emissions.176 Dr. Clark echoes CARB’s suggestion, and provides his own list of mitigation measures that include CARB’s proposals and others proposed by Air Quality Management Districts in California:

1. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires tenants to use the cleanest technologies available, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site.

2. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all TRUs entering the project site be plug-in capable.

3. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.

4. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements requiring all TRUs, trucks, and cars entering the Project site be zero-emission.

5. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be model year 2019 or later, expedite a transition to zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zeroemission beginning in 2030.

6. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires the tenant be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation,177 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP),178 and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.179 175 DEIR, Appendix A, February 8, 2021 letter from Heather Arias to Brent Cooper. 176 Ibid., Attachment A.
177 In December 2008, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty tractors that pull 53-foot or longer box-type trailers. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry-van and refrigerated-van trailers, and owners of the heavy-duty tractors that pull them on California highways. CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm.
178 The PSIP program requires that diesel and bus fleet owners conduct annual smoke opacity inspections of their vehicles and repair those with excessive smoke emissions to ensure compliance.

CARB's PSIP program is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/hdvip/hdvip.htm. 179 The regulation requires that newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting NSRRD

24 931
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper

7. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements restricting trucks and support equipment from idling longer than five minutes while on site.

8. Include rooftop solar panels for each proposed warehouse to the extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid.

9. Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas.

10.Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the Port as the Lead Agency should commit to reevaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this land use or higher activity level.

11.Ensure that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility.

12.Establish overnight parking within the industrial building where trucks can rest overnight.

13.Establish area(s) within the Proposed Project site for repair needs.180 The DEIR fails to consider or implement these feasible mitigation measures.

D. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate Hydrological Impacts
Wetland biologist Sarah Corbin identifies several potentially significant hydrological impacts that are not disclosed and/or are inadequately analyzed. She also cites several ways in which the DEIR fails to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed wetlands mitigation set forth in MM BIO-3a-3d.

1. The DEIR Fails To Disclose Or Adequately Analyze Hydrologic Impacts.

First, as discussed above, the lack of an accurate wetlands delineation and the failure to perform any functional assessment means that the DEIR cannot and does not describe or analyze the nature and extent of wetlands impacts. This January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 201 0 model year engines or equivalent. CARB's Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm
180 Clark Comments, pgs. 7-8.

NSRRD

24 25
26 932
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
failure alone requires that the DEIR be revised and recirculated with a full disclosure and analysis of potentially significant wetlands impacts.

Second, the DEIR states that underground piping will convey stormwater from the Project’s new pollution-generating impervious surfaces to bioretention and detention basins on the north boundary of the Project.181 The DEIR further identifies “passive or active control devise [sic] to allow treated stormwater to enter the wetland swale,” i.e. the created wetlands in the wetland preserve area.182 However, the DEIR fails to discuss how drainage patterns to and hydrology sources in the unimpacted and created wetlands will be maintained. Without pre- and postProject water budget analyses for the site wetlands, impacts to the “preserved” wetlands area cannot be properly evaluated and the DEIR’s determination that additional wetlands will not be impacted is not supported by substantial evidence.183
Third, the Project proposes use of a specialized biosoil in the bioretention facility to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. However, the DEIR also states that “the wetland preserve would facilitate the natural sequestration of pollutants of stormwater leaving the project site.”184 Using the wetland preserve as part of the Project’s post-construction stormwater management strategy (i.e., to filter pollutants) will have long term detrimental impacts to these wetlands.185 CEQA requires that if a mitigation measure itself would create significant impacts, those impacts must be discussed in the EIR.186 These impacts are neither described nor analyzed in the DEIR, in violation of CEQA.

Fourth, the DEIR fails to disclose or analyze potentially significant indirect impacts to the Project site wetlands. As Ms. Corbin explains, buffers around wetland areas are critical to ensuring the long-term viability of those sites and may provide habitat or corridors necessary for the ecological functioning of the wetlands.187 The importance of such buffers are emphasized in the Army Corps of Engineers mitigation guidelines for vernal pools, which require at least 100 feet 181 Corbin Comments, pg. 4; DEIR, pg. 3.8-13.
182 DEIR, Exh. 3.3-4.
183 Corbin Comments, pg. 4.
184 DEIR, pg. 3.8-11.
185 Corbin Comments, pg. 4.
186 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(D).
187 Corbin Comments, pg. 5.

NSRRD

26 933
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
buffers “around all vernal pools and mitigation sites.”188 Such buffers should consist of “native vegetation or regionally characteristic annual grassland without cut or fill as a result of adjacent development” and the “appropriate buffer width will depend on adjacent land uses.”189
Here, buffer widths between wetlands and the Project footprint are not provided but the DEIR’s figure scales suggest they are less than 100 feet in many places, particularly adjacent to the Project footprint’s northern boundary.190 In addition, buffers surrounding several wetland areas are identified in the DEIR as proposed landscape areas, which suggests they will not consist of “native vegetation or regionally characteristic annual grassland without cut or fill as a result of adjacent development,” per Corps guidelines. Indirect impacts to these wetland areas from disturbed or landscaped buffers are not disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR.

Finally, the connections and corridor between the wetlands in the southeastern Project area (Wetlands IW-7 to IW-10) and the remaining wetland complex to the north and east will disappear once the Project is developed.191 This corridor disconnection, the overall reduction of undeveloped/unlandscaped buffer widths that will remain post-Project development and the indirect effects on the remaining site wetlands are not disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR. These potentially significant, unmitigated impacts must be fully analyzed in a revised and recirculated EIR.

2. The DEIR Contains No Evidence That Proposed Mitigation Will Be Effective.

In addition to the failure to describe and analyze potentially significant impacts to wetlands, the DEIR fails to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures will be effective in reducing the Project’s significant wetlands impacts.

Courts do not defer to determinations that mitigation measures will work when their efficacy is not apparent and there is no evidence in the record showing that they will be effective in remedying the identified impact.192 188 Id., citing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2016b, Draft mitigation and monitoring guidelines for vernal pools: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division, November, 23 p.6, available: https://www.spd.usace.army.mil//Portals/13/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/DVPGL.pdf. 189 Id. 190 Corbin Comments, pg. 5.
191191 Id., pg. 5.
192 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 866 NSRRD

26 27
934
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The DEIR includes mitigation measures MM BIO-3a—BIO-3d, which would create a “wetland preserve” area adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project site.193 This plan proposes to preserve 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and

0.13 acre of vernal pool, create 0.992 acre of seasonal wetlands in advance of or concurrent with Phase 1 development, and create 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools in advance of Phase 2.194 The DEIR concludes that implementation of these measures would offset impacts to the Project site wetlands “in-kind” and ensure that there is no net loss of wetland area, “thus reducing potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.”195 As Ms. Corbin and Mr. Cashen explain, while the wetlands mitigation measures may result in no net loss of wetland area, there is no discussion, let alone evidence, to support the conclusion that the mitigation will replace lost wetland functions and value.196 As discussed, neither the DEIR nor the supporting documentation contain any assessment of the wetland functions that will be lost by the development of the Project. Because of this failure, Ms. Corbin finds “we are unable to evaluate if the proposed mitigation will adequately replace lost wetland function.”197
Mr. Cashen echoes this criticism of the DEIR, noting that despite recognizing the impacts to several acres of wetland, “nowhere does the DEIR discuss the ecological functions of the wetlands at the Project site.”198 The wetlands and surrounding grasslands on the site currently occupy more than 200 acres of undeveloped land, which provide habitat for a variety of plant and bird species.

After development, the “wetland preserve” would be limited to a 44.8 acre area that would “(a) be located between the Project site and the Napa Logistics Center site [an adjacent large warehouse development]; (b) be bisected by the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project, and (c) have no connectivity to any other open space lands.

Thus, the preserve would function as a habitat “island” surrounded by urban (industrial) development.”199 The preserve would be subject to ongoing disturbance caused by traffic, noise and human activity associated with Project operation, which would degrade the preserve's functions as wildlife habitat.200 193 DEIR, pgs. 3.3-32—3.3-37
194 Id., pgs. 3.3-28—3.3-29.
195 Id., pg. 3.3-32.
196 Corbin Comments, pgs. 5-9; Cashen Comments, pgs. 5-6. 197 Corbin Comments, pg. 6.
198 Cashen Comments, pg. 5.
199 Id., pg. 6.
200 Ibid.

NSRRD

27 935
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Given the foregoing, the failure to assess the existing wetlands functions or to analyze whether the wetland preserve will mitigate those functional losses is a glaring omission. “Although the proposed mitigation might ensure no net loss of wetland area, it would not ensure no net loss of wetland function and values.” 201 Without an understanding of existing wetland function, it is not possible to determine whether the proposed mitigation will in fact replace or mitigate those lost functions. The DEIR therefore lacks any evidence demonstrating that mitigation measures MM BIO-3a—3d will in fact mitigate the Project’s functional impacts to wetlands.

Ms. Corbin discusses several additional ways in which the DEIR fails to support the conclusion that the proposed wetland mitigation will actually be effective.

First, the DEIR lacks any evidence supporting the assumption that the proposed wetlands mitigation ratios will adequately mitigate the Project’s significant impacts. The Project proposes to mitigate for Phase 1 and Phase 2 impacts at 2:1 and 1:1 ratios, respectively. Both the Devlin Road and Green Island Biological Assessments, prepared for the City in connection with projects adjacent to this Project Site and included in supporting materials for the DEIR, identify 2:1 as the typical Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board required mitigation ratios.202 The Corps identifies vernal pools as “difficult to replace resources” and “regionally significant habitat types,” making vernal pool wetland creation an inherently high risk mitigation that warrants a higher than typical mitigation ratios.203 The Corps also states that mitigation ratios greater than 1:1 are typically required because “mitigation sites often provide reduced functions compared to the impacted aquatic resources.”204 The DEIR offers no evidence supporting the assumption that these mitigation ratios, particularly the 1:1 ratio for Phase 2, will effectively mitigate lost wetland area and functions.

Second, the DEIR lacks evidence supporting that the proposed new wetlands area can be created and maintained. Ms. Corbin cites evidence demonstrating the difficulty of wetlands creation, especially with respect to vernal pools.205 Successful 201 Ibid. 202 DEIR, Appendix C, C-6 and C-7.
203 Corbin Comments, pg. 6.
204 Id., pg. 7, citing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2015, Final 2015 regional compensatory mitigation and monitoring guidelines for South Pacific division: January, 70 p., available:
https://www.spd.usace.army.mil/portals/13/docs/regulatory/mitigation/mitmon.pdf. 205 Id., pg. 6.

NSRRD

27 936
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
wetland creation is “largely driven by ability to provide appropriate hydrology,” i.e., it requires a source of water to create and maintain wetlands.206 The DEIR does not provide any hydrologic analysis demonstrating wetland creation potential in the proposed mitigation area. Such analysis should include a water budget analysis, typically supported by hydrology monitoring in the proposed wetland creation area.207 None of that analysis, crucial to assessing whether the proposed mitigation will be effective, is provided in the DEIR.

Finally, the wetland mitigation performance standards set forth in BIO MM 3-d will not ensure that such mitigation will be effective. This mitigation measure states that the basic objective of the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is to “ensure that project wetland impacts, and compensatory mitigation proposed to offset the wetland impacts, shall provide a no-net-loss of area of wetlands, and wetlands established/created shall be in-kind to the wetlands impacted [emphasis added].”208 As previously discussed, though, the DEIR provides no assessment of the impacted wetlands’ functions. Nor is there a discussion of the impacted wetlands varied habitat conditions (e.g., isolated vs. non-isolated wetlands).

Without an understanding of the impacted wetland functions, “there is no basis for establishing meaningful mitigation goals and associated meaningful performance standards to achieve no net loss.”209 By focusing on mitigation area size without replacing lost ecological function, the DEIR lacks any supporting evidence for its conclusion that the proposed wetland mitigation will be effective, and the plan does not comply with the State’s no net loss policy.210
E. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate Biological Impacts.

1. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Mitigate Impacts To The Swainson’s Hawk.

Mr. Cashen discusses in detail how the DEIR fails to adequately disclose or mitigate significant impacts to Swainson’s hawk, a California threatened species.211 The DEIR fails to accurately describe the Project’s significant impacts to Swainson’s 206 Ibid.
207 Ibid.
208 DEIR, pg. 3.3-33.
209 Corbin Comments, pg. 8.
210 Ibid. 211 Cashen Comments, pgs. 7-9, 14-15.

NSRRD

27 28
937
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
hawk foraging habitat, the loss of which is one of the primary threats to the species in California.212 The DEIR provides the following analysis of this issue:
“Based upon the limited number of Swainson’s hawk records within a 10-mile radius of the project site, there is sufficient foraging habitat in and within the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the limited number of known Swainson’s hawk to occur within a 10 mile radius of the project site and the acreage of existing foraging habitat currently protected, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to foraging habitat directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, therefore no mitigation is warranted for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.”213 Mr. Cashen identifies numerous flaws in this analysis.

First, while the DEIR asserts that the Project would “provide and preserve in perpetuity approximately 45 acres of open space that would include habitat currently suitable for foraging by the Swainson’s hawk,”214 it neglects to mention or analyze the fact that the Project will also result in the net loss of 163 acres of foraging habitat.215 Moreover, the DEIR’s discussion of habitat preservation fails to address that the Project will contain features (including landscaping and on-site drainage facilities) “designed and managed to discourage wildlife use of the site.”216 Nor does this discussion address mitigation measure MM LU-3, which would incorporate measures “to reduce the bird attractant potential of the wetland area, consistent with the [Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan] policies.”217 The DEIR’s analysis of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is incomplete without reconciling the attempts to preserve habitat with simultaneous efforts to discourage wildlife uses, and specifically bird uses, of the Project site.

Second, the DEIR fails to substantiate the assertion that there are only a “limited number” of Swainson’s hawk records within a 10-mile radius of the Project site. Mr. Cashen provides evidence showing numerous records of Swainson’s hawk in the vicinity of the Project site.218
212 Id., pg. 7.
213213 DEIR, pg. 3.3-24. 214214 Ibid.
215 Id., pg. 3.9-51.
216 Id., pg. 3.9-52.
217 Ibid.
218 Cashen Comments, pgs. 7-9.

NSRRD

28 938
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Third, the DEIR’s biological survey to locate Swainson’s hawk nests was limited to a single survey on April 16, 2021, during which the Applicant’s biologist drove roads within one mile of the Project site to inspect trees for raptor nest structures.219 This survey did not conform to Swainson’s hawk survey protocol requiring at least three independent surveys between April 5 and April 20, and therefore provides incomplete baseline data.220 As Mr. Cashen explains, following the protocol is crucial to locating Swainson’s hawk nests, because the nests are often not visible from ground level and is only detectable when one of the birds flies to of from the nest site (i.e., through extensive “sit and watch” surveying).221 Fourth, the DEIR claims, without any supporting data or other evidence, that “there is sufficient foraging habitat in and within the vicinity of the project site.” Mr. Cashen’s analysis finds that “much of the open space that remains in the vicinity of the Project is comprised of vineyards, marshlands, or other land cover types that provide little to no value as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk.”222 In an attempt to reverse the decline of California’s Swainson’s hawk population, California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) policy is that new development projects that adversely modify nesting or foraging habitat within 10 miles of an active nest should provide compensatory mitigation.223 Mr. Cashen cites evidence of active Swainson’s hawk nests within 5 miles of the Project site,224 which triggers the need for mitigation consistent with CDFW mitigation guidelines.225 Because the Project site is known to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks and because the DEIR does not require compensatory mitigation for impacts to that habitat, the Project would have unmitigated significant impacts.

Unrelated to mitigation of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, MM BIO-1 purports to establish pre-construction survey requirements to prevent potential construction-related impacts to Swainson’s hawk nesting areas. This mitigation measure contains conflicting requirements and lacks substantial 219 DEIR, Appendix C-1, pgs. 21 and 29.
220 Cashen Comments, pg. 8. 221 Ibid. 222 Ibid. 223 California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. 224 Cashen Comments, pg. 8, fn. 54. 225 See Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 899, 947 (mitigation that requires compliance with USFWS and/or CDFW approved protocols is adequate) NSRRD

28 939
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
evidence demonstrating that it will be effective. MM BIO-1a states that preconstruction surveys “shall be completed for at least two survey periods immediately prior to commencement of project construction.”226 This is consistent with Swainson’s hawk survey protocols which state that “[t]o meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys should be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a project’s initiation.”227 However, MM BIO-1a goes on to state that “[i]f no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first non-optional survey period starting March 20, then project construction may commence.”228 Allowing construction to commence during the first non-optional survey period would violate the protocol and would not ensure protection of the species.

MM BIO-1a also requires a 1,000-foot buffer around any Swainson’s hawk nesting sites. This conflicts with CDFW mitigation guidelines that call for a ¼ mile buffer.229 The DEIR provides no evidence that a 1,000-foot buffer would be sufficient to prevent impacts, nor does it require monitoring to validate the adequacy of the reduced buffer.

For all the foregoing reasons, Project impacts on Swainson’s hawks remain potentially significant and unmitigated, and the DEIR must be revised and recirculated to fully disclose, analyze and mitigate these impacts.

2. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Mitigate Impacts To The Golden Eagle.

A golden eagle was observed foraging at the Project site during the wildlife survey for the HBC Report in support of the DEIR.230 However, the DEIR offers no analysis of potential impacts of the Project to golden eagle foraging habitat. As discussed above, the Project will result in the net loss of more than 160 acres of potential foraging habitat, and will include features to discourage wildlife use and reduce bird attractant potential of the preserved open space. The DEIR fails to even acknowledge, let alone analyze or attempt to mitigate, Project impacts to golden eagle foraging habitat.
226 DEIR, pg. 3.3-26.
227 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000 May 31. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. p. 2. 228 DEIR, pg. 3.3-26.
229 California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. p. 11. 230 DEIR, pg. 3.3-25 and Appendix C-1, pg. 30.

NSRRD

28 29
940
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The DEIR does consider the possibility that Project construction activities may disturb golden eagle nests and includes MM BIO-1b to mitigate these potential impacts. As Mr. Cashen points out, however, MM BIO-1b does not require preconstruction surveys that adhere to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) survey protocol, nor does it establish any standards for survey techniques or level of effort.231 This matters because “golden eagle nests may be difficult to detect unless special techniques (e.g., aerial surveys) are implemented.”232 In addition, MM BIO1b provides for a 1,000-foot buffer from any golden eagle nest, which is inconsistent with USFWS guidelines which recommend a one-mile no-disturbance buffer surrounding golden eagle nesting sites. As Mr. Cashen explains, golden eagles are known to be highly sensitive to many types of disturbance and may react to human activity as far as 1,500 meters (4,921 feet) from nesting sites.233 While the species can develop tolerance to some forms of disturbance (e.g., hikers), there is no evidence that golden eagles can tolerate the high levels of disturbance that Project construction and operations would cause.234 The DEIR provides no evidence that a 1,000-foot buffer would adequately mitigate impacts to golden eagles nesting near the Project site.

3. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Mitigate Impacts To The Northern Harrier.

Northern harriers were observed foraging at the Project site during both winter and spring (breeding) seasons during surveys for the HBC Report and the DEIR recognizes that there is suitable nesting habitat throughout the Project site.235 As with Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle, the DEIR offers no analysis of the significance of up to 163 acres of habitat loss to the northern harrier, nor does it recognize the potential for lost breeding territory. As Mr. Cashen points out, the wetland preserve area would not mitigate such impacts as it does not provide suitable habitat for this species.236 Northern harriers “require a mosaic of large undisturbed habitats for nesting and foraging” while the proposed wetlands 231 Cashen Comments, pg. 16.
232 Ibid, citing Pagel JE, Whittington DM, Allen GT. 2010 Feb. Interim Golden Eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Birds, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. Updated Eagle Nest Survey Protocol. Available at: <https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/eagle-nest-surveyguidance-updated-protocol.pdf> 233 Cashen Comments, pg. 16.
234 Ibid.
235 DEIR, pg. 3.3-25.
236 Cashen Comments, pg. 10-11.

NSRRD

29 30
941
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
preserve “would be a habitat ‘island’ subject to various forms of disturbance associated with the Project.”237 While MM BIO-1c attempts to mitigate direct harms to the northern harrier via pre-construction surveys and nest buffers, it does nothing to address potential loss of foraging and breeding habitat. Nor is there any evidence in the DEIR that the required 500-foot buffer zone around northern harrier nests would be sufficient to mitigate impacts. For these reasons, the Project’s impacts on the northern harrier remain potentially significant and unmitigated.

4. The DEIR Fails To Analyze And Mitigate Impacts To The Merlin And Ferruginous Hawk.

The merlin and ferruginous hawk have been detected immediately north of the Project site238 and the DEIR acknowledges that the Project site provides suitable foraging habitat for both species.239 The Project would directly (via loss of 163 acres of undisturbed land) and functionally (via implementation of MM LU-3) eliminate habitat for these two species. The DEIR fails to disclose, analyze or incorporate mitigation for these potentially significant impacts.

5. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Mitigate Impacts To Breeding Birds (MM BIO-4).

The DEIR includes mitigation measure MM BIO-4, which requires a preconstruction breeding bird survey of the Project site and installation of “appropriate” buffer zones around all active nests. Mr. Cashen identifies three reasons why MM BIO-4 does not ensure that the Project’s impacts to nesting birds will be mitigated to less than significant levels.240
First, MM BIO-4 fails to establish standards for: (a) nest searching techniques, (b) minimum level of effort (i.e., survey hours per unit area), and (c) qualifications of the biologist conducting the survey. As Mr. Cashen explains, the ability to successfully locate nests in the Project area is dependent on these three variables.
237 Ibid.
238 Id., pg. 12.
239 DEIR, Appendix C-1, Table 2.
240 Cashen Comments, pgs. 18-20.

NSRRD

30 31
32 942
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
While the Project site lacks trees, it provides potential habitat and nesting materials for ground-nesting birds.241 Most ground-nesting birds construct nests that are inconspicuous and thus hard to find.242 As a result, successfully locating nests of ground-nesting birds requires special techniques.243 Because MM BIO-4 does not require implementation of such techniques, it provides no assurances that the Project would avoid take of nesting birds. In addition, locating all nests within the 200+ acres Project site may require a considerable level of effort. To ensure all bird nests that may be affected by the Project are located, the DEIR must establish standards for the survey effort (e.g., minimum number of survey hours per unit area). The success of any nest-searching method depends on the surveyor’s knowledge of where birds nest, how nesting birds behave, and the best time of day to search for nests, knowledge which requires training and experience.244 Because MM BIO-4 fails to establish standards for the “qualified biologist” that would conduct the nesting bird survey, it does not ensure the biologist would have the qualifications needed to successfully locate all nests within the Project area prior to construction.

Second, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that the buffer sizes proposed in MM BIO-4 would prevent negative impacts to nesting birds. Mr. Cashen opines that, based on his review of the literature, the 50-foot buffer proposed for passerines and other non-raptors is grossly deficient for almost all species. Construction noise levels associated with the Project may reach 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.245 Noise at that level far exceeds the level that is deleterious to most breeding birds.246 Consequently, a 50-foot buffer would be insufficient to avoid significant impacts to nesting birds. For other projects, the CDFW has recommended a minimum nodisturbance buffer of 500 feet for unlisted raptors and 250 feet for other non-listed bird species.247
Third, there are no performance standards, or monitoring and reporting requirements, for MM BIO-4. Monitoring is essential for two reasons: (1) to validate the adequacy of the nest buffers (and implement remedial actions if 241 Id., pg. 18. 242 Ibid.
243 Id., pgs. 18-19. 244 Id., pg. 19. See also Martin TE, Geupel GR. 1993. Nest-Monitoring Plots: Methods for Locating Nests and Monitoring Success. J. Field Ornithol. 64(4):507-519. 245 DEIR, p. 3.10-17.
246 Cashen Comments, pg. 19.
247 Ibid.

NSRRD

32 943
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
necessary), and (2) to ensure construction workers comply with the nest buffers.

Mr. Cashen states that, based on his experience, it is very difficult to ensure compliance with nest buffers unless a full-time biological monitor is present on site.

6. The DEIR’s Mitigation Measures to Mitigate Wetlands Loss are Undermined by and in Conflict with MM LU-3.

As discussed, the DEIR fails to assess existing wetland functions (including habitat function) and therefore cannot demonstrate the efficacy of wetlands mitigation. However, any efforts to use the wetland preserve area to replace lost habitat functions will also be completely undermined by the application of a separate mitigation measure, MM LU-3.

Mitigation measure MM LU-3 seeks to address potential conflicts with the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (“ALUCP”). The ALUCP includes provisions seeking to avoid hazards to airplanes using the Napa County Airport, which is approximately 3,000 feet from the Project’s proposed wetlands preserve area. Wetlands are attractive to many types of wildlife, including birds which can pose hazards to airplanes taking off and landing at nearby airports. As a result, the FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects be sited at least 10,000 feet from the nearest aircraft operations area (for airports serving turbinepowered aircraft).248 To address this issue, MM LU-3 includes a provision requiring an assessment by a wildlife biologist of potential wildlife hazards to aviation. This assessment must “evaluate the characteristics of the emergent wetlands, drainages, other potential wildlife attractant features (i.e., ponded water) located within the open space area [i.e., the wetland preserve required by MM BIO-2 and BIO-3].”249 MM LU-3 specifically requires that this assessment identify management practices to “prevent the creation of attractants for large flocks or [sic] birds or other wildlife species that may present safety hazards to aviation activities.”250 In discussing this measure, the DEIR notes that the Project will include “features that would be designed and managed to discourage wildlife use of the site.”251 248 Cashen Comments, pg. 14.
249 DEIR, pg. 3.9-52.
250 Ibid.
251 Ibid.

NSRRD

32 33
944
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The DEIR fails to acknowledge the contradiction between, on the one hand attempting to mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to wetlands by creating a wetland preserve, while on the other hand actively seeking to degrade the preserve as wildlife habitat. This conflict is yet another reason why the DEIR fails to establish that MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 will effectively mitigate the Project’s wetlands impacts. Moreover, MM LU-3 may itself cause potentially significant impacts to wildlife, requiring that the DEIR separately disclose and analyze those impacts.252

7. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze Or Mitigate Cumulative Impacts To Biological Resources.

CEQA requires that an EIR include consideration of cumulative impacts when a project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.253 Among other requirements, the lead agency must define the geographical scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographical limitation used.254
The DEIR states “[t]he geographical scope of the cumulative biological resources analysis is a 0.5-mile radius of the project site.”255 The DEIR provides no explanation for this 0.5-mile limitation, other than that the “project site is located at this transition between urban development and the marshes associated with the Napa River; accordingly, habitats in these areas tend to be disrupted and impacts would be localized.”256 The DEIR also states “[a]lthough there would be loss of foraging habitat, the cumulative loss of this resource would not be considerable due to the abundance of habitat in the American Canyon area.” There are several problems with the DEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts to biological resources. First, the DEIR fails to provide a reasonable explanation or any supporting evidence for limiting the geographical scope to 0.5 miles, offering only the conclusory statement that habitats in areas like the Project site “tend to be disrupted and impacts would be localized.” Second, in finding that the loss of foraging habitat would not be cumulatively considerable, the DEIR relies on the “abundance of habitat in the American Canyon area.” Again, there is no evidence 252 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(D).
253 14 CCR § 15130.
254 14 CCR § 15130(b)(3).
255 DEIR, pg. 4-5.
256 Ibid.

NSRRD

33 34
945
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
for this assertion as the DEIR doesn’t even attempt to describe where this abundant habitat is located, or what it is defining as the “American Canyon area.” Nor does the DEIR attempt to square this assertion with the Biological Resources Analysis prepared for the City for the adjacent Green Island Road Widening Project, which states “the Giovannoni property is the only remaining, undisturbed habitat located in the vicinity of the project site.”257
Furthermore, as Mr. Cashen points out, the DEIR’s rationale is flawed as it applies two different geographic scales to the analysis. “It is not possible to accurately analyze cumulative impacts by using one geographic scale (i.e., the “American Canyon area”) to analyze the abundance of remaining habitat, but a much smaller scale (i.e., 0.5-mile) to analyze other projects that would impact foraging habitat.”258
VII. THE CITY MAY NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO
APPROVE THE PROJECT’S LOCAL LAND USE PERMITS.

The Project requires that the City issue discretionary approvals, including a Use Permit and a Design Permit.259 The Design Permit requires that the City make certain findings, including that the Project complies with all applicable General Plan policies.260 The Use Permit requires that the City find that the Project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan and will not be materially detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the public and residents in the vicinity of the Project.261 As discussed above, the DEIR fails to disclose, analyze or effectively mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts on air quality, public health, biological resources and transportation. These impacts also create inconsistencies with the General Plan polices which the DEIR fails to disclose and mitigate. As a result of these inconsistencies, the City is unable to make the necessary findings to approve the Project’s local land use permits.

As an initial matter, the City may not make the required finding, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.42.202 D.5., that the Project will not be materially detrimental to the general health, safety or general welfare of the public and residents in the vicinity of the Project. As discussed above, the Health Risk 257 DEIR, Appendix C.7, pg. 8.
258Cashen Comments, pg. 14.
259 DEIR, pg. 2-11.
260 American Canyon Municipal Code § 19.41.050 C.
261 American Canyon Municipal Code § 19.42.020 D.1 and D.5.

NSRRD

34 35
946
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Assessment performed for the Project has serious flaws which prevent it from adequately analyzing health risks to sensitive receptors from the Project’s air emissions.

The City is also precluded from making required findings pursuant to Municipal Code sections 19.41.050 C (for issuance of a Design Permit) and

19.42.020 D.1 (for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit) because it cannot find that the Project complies with and is consistent with applicable General Plan policies.

Our analysis of the DEIR reflected in these comments show that the Project fails to comply with several key policies in the General Plan, including the following. (a) Circulation Element. Guiding Policy 1.11 calls for the reduction of total vehicle miles traveled by City residents, and Policy 1.24 states that new development will be responsible for mitigation of transportation impacts. As explained in detail above, the DEIR’s VMT analysis is completely unsupported and does not demonstrate that the Project will reduce VMT as compared to existing averages. To the contrary, transportation expert Norm Marshall provided evidence showing that the Project’s VMT is likely to exceed applicable existing averages and therefore requires mitigation. Because the Project will not reduce VMT and will not mitigate potentially significant traffic impacts, the City cannot make the required finding of consistency with the General Plan’s Circulation Element. (b) Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element. The General Plan includes several applicable policies with respect to the Project’s impacts to biological resources.
x Policy 8.21 provides that land use applications for developments located within sensitive habitats, including riparian habitats or habitats within areas occupied by vernal pools, shall be accompanied by sufficient technical background data to enable an adequate assessment of the potential for impacts on these resources and possible measures to reduce any identifiable impacts. As discussed herein, the DEIR lacks sufficient technical background data to assess impacts to wetlands or to mitigate such impacts because it lacks any lacks any functional assessment of the existing wetlands on the Project site.

Moreover, the DEIR completely fails to examine the Project’s impacts on foraging habit for several special status bird species. x Policy 8.31 requires that for developments in wetlands and riparian habitats, retained riparian corridors “shall be protected by an adequate NSRRD

35a
35b
35c
35d
947
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
buffer with a minimum 100 foot protection zone…” The Project’s proposed buffer zones associated with No-Name Creek and the associated wetlands are not discussed in the DEIR or supporting technical documents, nor are they labeled in figures. Using the figure scales strongly suggests that buffer widths adjacent to Project development will be less than 100 feet in many places.262 x Policy 8.41 requires that development plans incorporate all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid significantly impacting vernal pools. As discussed herein, the DEIR’s lack of a functional assessment of the Project site’s wetlands, including vernal pools, makes it impossible to evaluate the efficacy of the proposed mitigation measures. x Policy 8.42 requires preservation, where possible, of the habitat of rare, threatened or endangered species, specifically including the northern harrier and golden eagle. Both of those species have been observed foraging at the Project site, and as discussed in detail above, the DEIR fails to evaluate the loss of foraging habitat, let alone make any efforts to preserve such habitat.
x Policy 8.43 encourages activities that improve the biological value and integrity of the City’s natural resources through, inter alia, control of alien plants. The Project has the potential to introduce invasive plant species and to facilitate their spread.263 Construction vehicles and equipment are common vectors for transporting invasive plant seeds or spores from one place to another, and soil and vegetation disturbance associated with construction creates suitable conditions for establishment of invasive plants.264 The DEIR fails to include any mitigation to minimize the Project’s potential to introduce invasive plant species or facilitate their spread.

The DEIR fails to address or remedy these inconsistencies with General Plan policies, and the City accordingly may not make the necessary findings to support the required discretionary approvals for the Project.

VIII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the DEIR for the Project is wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be thoroughly revised to provide legally adequate 262 Corbin Comments, pg. 8.
263 Cashen Comments, pg. 12.
264 Ibid.

NSRRD

35d
35e
35f
35g
36 948
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
analysis of, and mitigation for, all of the Project’s potentially significant impacts.

These revisions will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, as described herein, the County may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
Richard M. Franco
Attachments
RMF:acp
36 NSRRD

949

EXHIBIT A
CLARK

950
1| Page
July 12, 2022
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Richard Franco
Subject: Comments On Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) For Giovanonni Logistics Center Project, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California, State
Clearinghouse Number 2021010104
Dear Mr. Franco:

At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed materials related to the 2022 City of American Canyon’s (the City’s) DEIR of the above referenced project.

Clark’s review of the materials in no way constitutes a validation of the conclusions or materials contained within the plan. If we do not comment on a specific item this does not constitute acceptance of the item.

Project Description:

According to the City the proposed project consists of the development of up to 2.4 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on 163 acres of the project site. Phase 1 consists of approximately 1.1 million square feet on the eastern portion of the project site. Phase 2 consist of approximately 1.3 million square feet on the western portion of the project site. Approximately 45 acres of the project site would be preserved as wetlands. The applicant would extend the Napa Valley Vine Trail along the project frontage with Devlin Road and Green Island Road.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]
Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

CLARK

1 2
951
2| Page
Figure 1: Project Site Location
CLARK

2 952
3| Page
Unavoidable Significant Impacts
According to the City’s DEIR of the Project, the potentially significant and unavoidable impacts from the project include:
x Consistency With Air Quality Management Plan: The proposed project would result in exceedances of regional emissions thresholds and, therefore, be inconsistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regional air quality planning assumptions. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures; however, these measures would not reconcile this inconsistency.

Therefore, the significance after mitigation is significant and unavoidable. x Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts: The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of air emissions reduction measures, but it would not fully reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the significance after mitigation is significant and unavoidable.

The conclusion from the City that the significant impacts are unavoidable is not supported by the facts of the Project. There are substantial impacts that are not addressed in the City’s analysis, as well as numerous feasible mitigation measures that the City fails to consider, that must be addressed in a revised environmental draft impact report (R-DEIR).

Specific Comments:

1. The Air Dispersion Model Used For The Health Risk Assessment For Operational Phases Of The Project Has A Structural Flaw That Result In Inaccurate Estimates Of The Project Emissions Within The Community
The modeling approach has a significant flaw - the model does not account for the impact on emissions from building downwash. If the building downwash were included in the model, then the Proponent would be reasonably expected to call that out in the text summary of the model. The AERMOD model calculates the ground-level concentration of DPM emission associated with the 3 4
CLARK

953
4| Page
project. The height of release for emissions from idling trucks is generally assumed to be 2.55 meters to 3.4 meters (8.4 feet to 11.2 feet) well below the height of the building. The release height for DPM from trucks traveling along the streets is generally assumed to be at the ground surface (0 meters or 0 feet).

Building downwash occurs as the wind flows over and around buildings and impacts the dispersion of pollution from nearby stacks. A plume caught in the path of this flow is drawn into the wake, temporarily trapping it in a recirculating cavity. This downwash effect leads to higher groundlevel concentration of chemicals emitted from sources. The downwash effect increases as the relative difference between the release height and top of the building increases.1 For the closest receptors to the site, the residences to the east of the Project, this difference will create an additional air quality impact that is not accounted for in the City’s analysis. Guidance from authoritative bodies in California regarding the preparation of health risk assessments of mobile sources of diesel emissions2 requires the inclusion of building heights and dimensions for building downwash calculations.

Omission of the building downwash effect underestimates the exposure point concentrations for receptors near the building(s). The City should address the impact of this issue in a R-DEIR.

2. The City Has Failed To Quantify All Of The Health Impacts Emissions From The Project On The Surrounding Community.

The City must assess the air quality impacts for all toxic air compounds (TACs) that will be released during the construction and operational phases of the project. CARB3 defines diesel exhaust as a complex mixture of inorganic and organic compounds that exists in gaseous, liquid, and solid phases. CARB and U.S. EPA identify 40 components of the exhaust as suspected human carcinogens, 1 The so-called good engineering practice height (GEP) of the source. The GEP is defined in Section 123 of the Clean Air Act as “the height necessary to ensure that emissions from a stack do not result in excessive concentrations of any air pollutant in the immediate vicinity of the source as a result of atmospheric downwash, eddies or wakes which may be created by the source itself, nearby structures or nearby terrain obstacles.” 2 SCAQMD. 2003. Health Risk Assessment Guidance For Analyzing Cancer Risks From Mobile Source Diesel Emissions. August, 2003. Page 2.
3 CARB. 1998. Report to the Air Resources Board on the Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Part A, Public Exposure To, Sources and Emissions of Diesel Exhaust In California. April 22, 1998. Pg A-1.

CLARK

4 5
954
5| Page
including formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and benzo[a]pyrene. The inhalation unit risk factor identified by OEHHA for use in risk assessments is for the particulate matter (DPM) fraction of diesel exhaust and not the vapor phase components identified by CARB and U.S. EPA.

There is notable precedent requiring a quantitative analysis of TACs from diesel exhaust in CEQA documents. Moreover, the absence of this analysis renders the DEIR’s health risk analysis incomplete.

In a 2017 Air Quality Technical Report4 submitted in support of a Draft EIR for the Turk Island Landfill Consolidation and Residential Subdivision5, proponents accounted for the gaseous phase of diesel emission and detailed the speciated diesel total organic gas (TOG) emissions along with the DPM emissions for all construction equipment. The speciated diesel TOG emissions and DPM emissions were utilized in dispersion modeling to identify the maximally exposed individual sensitive receptor (MEISR) of the project to determine the health risks associated with all sources of air toxins from the construction phase of the project. This is a common and feasible analysis that is routinely performed for development projects like the Giovanonni Logistics Center Project. .

Here, the City’s analysis ignores the presence of TACs being emitted with diesel exhaust during the construction and operational phases of the project without making any attempt to quantify the impacts. This omission is a continuing flaw that must be addressed by the City. The results should then be presented in an REIR prior to approving any agreements with the Proponent or issuing any permits for the Project.

3. Mitigation Measure AQ-2d Assumes That The Fleet of Heavy Duty Trucks Entering the Site Will Be From Year 2014 Or Later. If the MM Can Require A Specific Age of Vehicles Entering The Project Site, It Should Be Changed To Make A Real Impact On Emissions From The Heavy Duty Truck Traffic.

The City’s MM requires heavy-duty vehicles entering or operation on the Phase I project 4 Ramboll Environ. 2017. Air Quality Technical Report Turk Island Landfill Consolidation And Residential Subdivision Project. Prepared For City of Union City, Union City, CA. Prepared by Ramboll Envion US Corporation, San Francisco, CA August, 2017. https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1867/Turk-Island---App-D---AQEmissions-Report?bidId= 5 Union City. 2018. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Turk Island Landfill Consolidation And Residential Subdivision Project. SCH Number 20008112107. Dated 3/15/2018. https://www.unioncity.org/DocumentCenter/View/1863/Turk-Island-DEIR?bidId= CLARK

5 6
955
6| Page
site be model year 2014 or later. The City proffers that model year 2014 was selected as the baseline for MM AIR-2d since it is the first homogenous model year for a trucking fleet in Napa County to demonstrate a reduction in NOx emissions when compared with unmitigated emission estimates.6 The DEIR goes on to state that this would allow the proposed project to utilize trucks which are 9 years old and would not constitute an infeasible financial burden. No explanation is provided as to why a 9 year age value is important in deciding how mitigation is best achieved in this measured. If the City can arbitrarily limit the age of the heavy duty vehicles entering and exiting the site in the mitigation measure, then clearly choosing newer model vehicles will limit the impacts of the Project on the surrounding community.

Using the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMission FACtor (EMFAC) model, it is possible to estimates the emissions from onroad mobile sources in California, including but not limited to heavy duty trucks. The model calculates emissions factors and emissions inventories for:
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
• Hydrocarbons (HC): HC can be expressed as TOG (total organic gases), ROG (reactive organic gases), THC (total hydrocarbon), or CH4 (methane). The TOG class includes all organic gases emitted into the atmosphere. The ROG class is same as EPA’s VOC (volatile organic compounds) definition and does not contain compounds exempt from regulation. • Particulate matter (PM): PM estimates are provided for total suspended particulates for particulate matters 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matters 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5).
• Sulfur oxides (SOx): Emissions of oxides of sulfur are a function of the sulfur content of fuel. The model calculates these emissions by multiplying the fuel consumption by the weight fraction of sulfur in a gallon of fuel.
• Greenhouse Gases (GHG): GHG emissions are consisted of complete combustion CO2, Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and Methane (CH4). These are the greenhouse gases that are now included in the EMFAC2017 but not in EMFAC2014 or prior versions In my analysis the emissions for NOx, PM2.5 as exhaust, and ROGs for vehicles with model years 2014 6 DEIR. 2022. Pg 3.2-52
CLARK

6 956
7| Page
through 2023 are presented in the table below.

CLARK

6 957
8| Page
Table 1: EMFAC Emission Estimates For Heavy Duty Vehicles For Model Years 2014 Through 2023 Region Calendar
Year
Vehicle
Category
Model
Year
Speed Fuel NOx RUNEX NOx IDLEX NOx STREX PM2.5 RUNEX PM2.5 IDLEX ROG RUNEX ROG IDLEX NAPA 2022 HHDT 2014 Aggregate Diesel 2.778844551 50.80636429 2.613874323 0.025035437 0.017506165 0.022887 4.299453 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2015 Aggregate Diesel 2.345451108 51.92562228 2.74172836 0.022318586 0.017891823 0.021046 4.394169 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2016 Aggregate Diesel 2.192511301 77.24539422 2.420945579 0.025208499 0.026616165 0.02069 6.536837 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2017 Aggregate Diesel 1.972706671 55.10183426 2.5390266 0.022509571 0.018986239 0.019317 4.662954 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2018 Aggregate Diesel 1.929060853 65.67679723 2.492548207 0.020133388 0.022630016 0.01898 5.557853 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2019 Aggregate Diesel 1.783407962 65.75207583 2.532456421 0.017761909 0.022655954 0.018014 5.564223 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2020 Aggregate Diesel 1.634436853 67.63458847 2.546059664 0.015328146 0.023304605 0.017028 5.72353 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2021 Aggregate Diesel 1.477482558 69.45569507 2.544574509 0.012839429 0.023932097 0.016007 5.87764 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2022 Aggregate Diesel 1.325608737 62.89555128 2.596405372 0.010019622 0.021671692 0.014993 5.322492 NAPA 2022 HHDT 2023 Aggregate Diesel 1.130846234 89.87741795 2.369254269 0.007748138 0.030968736 0.013809 7.605814 Note: Units: g/mile for RUNEX, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX
CLARK Page 60 of 165
6 958
9| Page
Based on the averaged emissions from the table above it is clear that changing the minimum allowable model year from 2014 to 2018 would result in:
x A 31% reduction in running NOx emissions (NOx RUNEX) from trucks operating on site.
x A 19.5% reduction in diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from trucks measured as particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) operating on site (PM2.5 RUNEX).
x A 17% reduction in reactive organic gases (ROGs) from trucks operating on site (ROG RUNEX).

Based on the averaged emissions from the table above it is clear that changing the minimum allowable model year from 2014 to 2020 would result in:
x A 41% reduction in NOx emissions from trucks operating on site. x A 39% reduction in diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from trucks measured as particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) operating on site. x A 26% reduction in reactive organic gases (ROGs) from trucks operating on site.

4. There Are A Number Of Mitigation Measures That Will Have A Direct Impact On Operational NOx and GHG Emissions Not Explored By The City In The DEIR Mitigation measures that have previously been recommended by the California Air Resources Board and the Air Quality Management Districts in California to reduce operational NOx and GHG emissions not included in the DEIR by the City include:

1. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires tenants to use the cleanest technologies available, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site.

2. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all TRUs entering the project site be plug-in capable.

3. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans.

4. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements requiring all TRUs, trucks, and cars entering the Project site be zero-emission.

CLARK

6 7
959
10 | Page

5. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires all heavy-duty trucks entering or on the project site to be model year 2019 or later, expedite a transition to zeroemission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission beginning in 2030.

6. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires the tenant be in, and monitor compliance with, all current air quality regulations for on-road trucks including CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation,7 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP),8 and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.9

7. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements restricting trucks and support equipment from idling longer than five minutes while on site.

8. Include rooftop solar panels for each proposed warehouse to the extent feasible, with a capacity that matches the maximum allowed for distributed solar connections to the grid.

9. Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer signs, so that trucks will not enter residential areas.

10. Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the Proposed Project to levels analyzed in the CEQA document. If higher daily truck volumes are anticipated to visit the site, the City as the Lead Agency should commit to re-evaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this land use or higher activity level.

11. Ensure that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility.

12. Establish overnight parking within the industrial building where trucks can rest overnight.

13. Establish area(s) within the Proposed Project site for repair needs. 7 In December 2008, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty tractors that pull 53-foot or longer box-type trailers. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry-van and refrigerated-van trailers, and owners of the heavy-duty tractors that pull them on California highways. CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm.
8 The PSIP program requires that diesel and bus fleet owners conduct annual smoke opacity inspections of their vehicles and repair those with excessive smoke emissions to ensure compliance. CARB's PSIP program is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/hdvip/hdvip.htm.
9 The regulation requires that newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 201 0 model year engines or equivalent. CARB's Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm CLARK

7 960
11 | Page

5. The HRA Failed To Accurately Account For The Back-up Generator (BUG) Usage Onsite. The HRA Accounts For 50 Hours Of Operation And Does Not Account For The More Likely Use of Up To 200 Hours Of Operation Per Year.

The three 50 horse power (hp) BUGs were assumed to be operated up to 48 hours per year.

Under the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines10 guidance, the District may allow a new stationary emergency standby diesel-fueled Cl engine (> 50 hp) to operate up to 100 hours per year for maintenance and testing purposes on a site-specific basis, provided the diesel PM emission rate is less than or equal to 0.01 g/bhp-hr. In addition to the testing emissions, the air quality analysis in the DEIR must include the substantial increase in operational emissions from BUGs in the Air Basin due to unscheduled events, including but not limited to Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS) events and extreme heat events. Extreme heat events are defined as periods where in the temperatures throughout California exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The total duration of the PSPS events lasted between 141 hours to 154 hours in 2019. In 2021, the Governor of California declared that during extreme heat events the use of stationary generators shall be deemed an emergency use under California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 17, section 93115.4 sub. (a) (30) (A)(2). The number of Extreme Heat Events is likely to increase in California with the continuing change in climate the State is currently undergoing. Coupling the testing time (50 hours per year) with the use during PSPS events (approximately 150 hours per year), it is more likely that the BUG will be operated at least 200 hours per year.

Power produced during PSPS or extreme heat events is expected to come from engines regulated by CARB and California’s 35 air pollution control and air quality management districts (air districts). Of particular concern are health effects related to emissions from diesel back-up engines. DPM has been identified as a toxic air contaminant, composed of carbon particles and numerous organic compounds, including over forty known cancer-causing organic substances.

The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs and make them more susceptible to injury.
10 Title 17, California Code of Regulations section 93115 CLARK

8 961
12 | Page
According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) de-energization report in October 2019, there were almost 806 PSPS events (emphasis added) that impacted almost 973,000 customers (~7.5% of households in California) of which ~854,000 of them were residential customers, and the rest were commercial/industrial/medical baseline/other customers. CARB’s data also indicated that on average each of these customers had about 43 hours of power outage in October 2019. Using the actual emission factors for each diesel BUG engines in the air district’s stationary BUGs database, CARB staff calculated that the 1,810 additional stationary generators (like those proposed for the Project) running during a PSPS in October 2019 generated 126 tons of NOx, 8.3 tons or particulate matter, and 8.3 tons of DPM.

For every PSPS or Extreme Heat Event (EHE) triggered during the operational phase of the project, significant concentrations of DPM will be released. A R-DEIR should be prepared for the Project that includes an analysis of the additional operation of the BUG that will occur at the project site that is not accounted for in the current air quality and GHG analyses.

Conclusion
The facts identified and referenced in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant unmitigated impacts if the DEIR is approved. The City must reevaluate the significant impacts identified in this letter by requiring the preparation of a revised draft environmental impact report.

Sincerely,
.

CLARK

8 9
962

EXHIBIT A
CV
CLARK

963
James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:

Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:

Dr. Clark is a well-recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 30 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling, RESRAD, GENII); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.

SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client(s) - Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a historical dose reconstruction for community members from an active 700 acre petroleum refinery in Los Angeles. The analysis included a multi-year dispersion model was performed in general accordance with the methods outlined by the U.S. EPA and the SCAQMD for assessing the health impacts in Torrance, California. The results of the analysis are being used as the basis for injunctive relief for the communities surrounding the refinery.

Client(s) – Multiple
Indoor Air Evaluations, California: Performed multiple indoor air screening evaluations and risk characterizations consistent with California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) methodologies. Characterizations included the use of DTSC’s Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
Office
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
Phone
310-907-6165
Fax
310-398-7626
Email
[email protected]
CLARK

10 964
modified Johnson & Ettinger Model and USEPA models, as well as the attenuation factor model currently advocated by Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Client – Adams, Broadwell, Joseph Cardozo, P.C.

Dr. Clark has performed numerous air quality analyses and risk assessments of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions for sites undergoing evaluation via the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The analyses include the evaluation of Initial Study (IS) and Environmental Impacts Reports (EIR) for each project to determine the significance of air quality, green house gas (GHG), and hazardous waste components of the projects. The analyses were compiled as comment letters for submittal to oversight agencies.

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model were used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and were be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a historical dose reconstruction for community members from radiologically impacted material (RIM) releases from an adjacent landfill. The analysis was performed in general accordance with the methods outlined by the Agency for Toxic Substances Control (ATSDR) for assessing radiation doses from historical source areas in North St. Louis County, Missouri.

Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark managed the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa CLARK

965
Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark assisted the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.

Client: Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a historical dose reconstruction for community members exposed to radioactive waste released into the environment from legacy storage facilities. The releases resulted in impacts to soils, sediments, surface waters, and groundwater in the vicinity of the sites. The analysis was performed in general accordance with the methods outlined by the Agency for Toxic Substances Control (ATSDR) for assessing radiation doses from historical source areas in the community.

Client: Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a dose assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to metals and silica from fly ash who later developed cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare opinions regarding his exposure and later development of cancer.

Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.

Client: Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to hexavalent chromium who later developed cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare opinions regarding her exposure and later development of cancer.

CLARK

966
Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.

Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.

CLARK

967
Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).

The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.

Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:

Books and Book Chapters
CLARK

968
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:

Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.

Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.

Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.

Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

Journal and Proceeding Articles
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 Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

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, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 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 – CLARK

969
DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.

March 20, 2003.

Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.

Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.

Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.

Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.

Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.

CLARK

970
Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.

Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.

Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.

McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.

CLARK

971

EXHIBIT B
S&W

972
SUBMITTED TO:

Adams Broadwell Joseph &
Cardozo PC
601 Gateway Boulevard,
Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA
94080
BY:

Shannon & Wilson
400 N. 34th Street, Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98103-8636
(206) 632-8020
www.shannonwilson.com

WATER RESOURCES REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT
Giovannoni Logistics Center

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA
July 19, 2022
Shannon & Wilson No: 109577-001
S&W

973
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
7/19/2022-109577-001-R1f.docx/wp/tvv i
Submitted To: Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo PC
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Mr. Richard M. Franco
Subject: WATER RESOURCES REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT, GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER, CITY OF AMERICAN

CANYON, CALIFORNIA
Shannon & Wilson prepared this report and participated in this project as a consultant to Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo PC. Our scope of services was specified in the proposal dated June 24, 2022, and was authorized by Mr. Richard Franco in email dated June 27, 2022. This report presents our review of the adequacy of the proposed water resource impact documentation and analyses and the adequacy of the associated proposed mitigation in the Giovannoni Logistics Center Draft Environmental Impact Report and was prepared by the undersigned.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions concerning this report, or we may be of further service, please contact us.

Sincerely,

SHANNON & WILSON
Sarah Corbin, PWS, MSES Todd Kincaid, PhD
Associate Senior Associate
Senior Biologist Hydrogeologist/Hydrogeologic Modeler
SCC:KLW/scc:tdk
S&W

1 974
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
ii

CONTENTS

CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Wetland Resources Review ...................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Supporting Documentation ............................................................................................ 1

2.2 Wetland Delineation........................................................................................................ 1

2.3 Wetland Impacts .............................................................................................................. 3

2.3.1 Wetland Impact Inconsistencies........................................................................ 3

2.3.2 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................... 4

2.3.2.1 Hydrology Impacts ................................................................................ 4

2.3.2.2 Water Quality Impacts........................................................................... 4

2.3.2.3 Reduced Buffer Widths ......................................................................... 5

2.3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................... 5

2.4 Proposed Mitigation ........................................................................................................ 5

2.4.1 Wetland Mitigation ............................................................................................. 6

2.4.1.1 Mitigation Ratios .................................................................................... 6

2.4.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing........................................................................... 7

2.4.1.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Performance Standards......................... 7

2.4.2 Buffer Mitigation ................................................................................................. 8 3 Groundwater Resources Review ............................................................................................. 9

3.1 Supporting Documentation ............................................................................................ 9

3.2 Water Supply Demand.................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Loss of Recharge.............................................................................................................10 4 High Level Stormwater Review.............................................................................................11

4.1 Supporting Documentation ..........................................................................................11

4.2 Summary .........................................................................................................................11 5 Main Conclusions.....................................................................................................................12 6 References ................................................................................................................................. 12 S&W

2 975
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
1 ACRONYMS
1 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the findings of our water resources reviews of Section 3.03 Biological Resources and Section 3.08 Hydrology and Water Quality of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2021010104), including referenced and supporting material, for the Giovannoni Logistics Center project (Project) in City of American Canyon, Napa County, California (City) (Firstcarbon Solutions, 2022). The reviews focused on adequacy of wetland, groundwater, and stormwater (collectively called water resources) impact analysis and adequacy of the associated proposed mitigation.

Independent analyses and assessments have not been performed. This report summarizes the analyses presented in the DEIR and supporting documents upon which the findings of impacts on water resources are based. Depth and extent of review varies by discipline.

Descriptions of the specific discipline reviews and the review findings are outlined in the sections below.
2 WETLAND RESOURCES REVIEW

2.1 Supporting Documentation
In addition to Section 3.03 of the DEIR, our review of the Project's wetland related impacts and mitigation relied on the following documents:
ƒ DEIR Appendix C.1 – Giovannoni Logistics Center Biological Resources Report (Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., 2021)
ƒ DEIR Appendix C.2 – Monk and Associates 2016 Wetland Jurisdictional Delineation Report (Monk, 2016a)
ƒ DEIR Appendix C.3 – USACE 2016 Wetland Verification Map (Monk, 2016b) ƒ DEIR Appendix C.6 – Monk 2018 Devlin Road Biological Resources Assessment (Monk, 2018)
ƒ DEIR Appendix C.7 – Monk Green Island Road Widening Biological Resources Assessment (Monk, 2019)

2.2 Wetland Delineation
Project site wetlands were delineated by Monk in April and May of 2016 (Monk, 2016a).

The 2016 delineation report states the wetland delineations were completed using the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [Corps], 1987) S&W

3 4
5a
976
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
2 and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center [USAERDC], 2008). The delineation methodology described in the Monk 2016 report is consistent with the State Water Boards State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge of Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Procedures) (California State Water Resources Control Board [CSWRCB], 2019a).

Of the 142 wetland determination data sheets included in the 2016 Monk report, we reviewed 20 representative data sheets for consistency with the Corps manuals identified above, including review of percent vegetative cover and dominant species calculations, species' indicator statuses, and consistency of observed soils with the chosen hydric soil indicators. We found errors in data sheets such as incorrect dominant species identification (Data Points [DPs] 89, 111, and 120), miscalculated absolute percent cover (DPs 42 and 43), and incorrectly identified hydric soil indicators (DP 43), none of which impacted the report's wetland and upland determinations. However, in data sheet DP 110, Monk incorrectly identifies Helminthotheca echioides as a Facultative Upland (FACU) species; the Corps 2020 National Wetland Plant List identifies the species as a Facultative (FAC) species in the current Arid West region (Corps, 2020). The Corps' 2014 Arid West Regional Wetland Plant List identified the species as FACU (Corps, 2014), but the Corps 2016 Arid West Regional Plant List incorporated the species' wetland indicator status change to FAC and was published April 28, 2016, making it the correct plant list to reference during the Monk data analysis and report preparation (report dated August 2016). Assigning H. echiodes a FAC wetland indicator status changes the findings on DP 110 from upland to wetland condition, meaning that more wetland was present on the project site during the Monk delineation fieldwork than is reflected in the Monk report and DEIR. A search for H. echiodes in the remaining wetland determination sheets identified DPs 40, 97, 98, and 105 as locations where application of the species’ correct indicator status would change the data sheet finding from upland to wetland. The locations of DP 40 and 110, as shown on the 2016 delineation maps, approximately coincide with two of the areas the Project proposes to create wetland for mitigation of Project impacts (as shown on DEIR Exhibit 3.3-4).

The Monk delineation and Corps Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is six years old. We reviewed recent Google Earth aerial imagery of the project site during spring and identified areas that appear to demonstrate potential wetland condition that were not identified as wetland in the 2016 Monk report, particularly the area north of No Name Creek (general location of DP 110). Corps AJDs are valid for five years and the Project will need to obtain an updated AJD (Corps, 2016a). The Corps applies the AJD expiration because wetland boundaries are expected to change over time due to both natural (e.g., climate patterns) and human-caused activities (Corps, 2005). Given the age of the delineation, the errors identified in the wetland determination data forms, and the S&W

5a
5b
5c
977
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
3 associated potential for revised wetland extents, it is likely that the wetland boundaries are not accurately identified, and additional wetland is present on the site.

2.3 Wetland Impacts
The DEIR states that the Project's Phases 1 and 2 will impact 0.496 acre and 3.7 acres, respectively, of wetland and notes that Phase 2 wetland impact quantities may change as design progresses. Our review covered the adequacy of the wetland impact analysis presented in the DEIR and supporting documents.

One of their main assumptions used to support the basis of the Project's impact analysis is not supported. The DEIR Project Description Section 2.3.13 states, “For the purposes of providing a conservative, worst-case scenario, this Draft EIR assumes that Phases 1 and 2 would be developed concurrently over a period of 18 months.” However, a prolonged construction schedule that extends beyond 18 months and instead extends over several years (e.g., multiple nesting seasons and multiple “rainy seasons”) increases the potential for construction-related impacts to aquatic resources (e.g., water quality issues and in-air construction noise). The DEIR does not explain or support their assumption.

The DEIR does not include a functional assessment of the site wetlands and no functional impact analysis is provided. Wetland impact analyses are incomplete without a functional assessment that evaluates hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions of the site wetlands. Functions typical of vernal pool and other seasonal wetlands, such as those on the Project site, typically include providing rest and forage for migratory waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway; breeding habitat for amphibians and invertebrates; flood storage potential; and filtration of pollutants and excess nutrients from surface water and groundwater. The DEIR states that a functional assessment, such as the California Rapid Assessment Method, will be completed with the Project's Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. As described below in Section 2.4, the Project's proposed wetland mitigation cannot be deemed adequate without including consideration of impacted and mitigated wetland functions.

2.3.1 Wetland Impact Inconsistencies
Our review identified several discrepancies between the DEIR and supporting documents.

In comparing the itemized wetland impact areas in DEIR Table 3.3-1 with the wetland areas in the 2016 Monk report, we noted that the Project proposes to impact 189 square feet of Wetland W-89 while the Monk report quantifies W-89 size as 195 square feet, a discrepancy of 6 square feet. Although this does not change the Phase 1 impact quantity when converted to acres, the Project should count the entirety of the wetland as impacted.

S&W

5c
6a
6b
7 978
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
4 We identified inconsistencies in the position and presence of Wetland IW-9 in the 2016 Monk report delineation figure and the AJD and DEIR wetland figures. In the 2016 Monk report, Wetland IW-9 is a 2,625-square-foot isolated linear wetland in the southeast portion of the project area that would partially coincide with or be immediately adjacent to the Project development footprint (DEIR Appendix C, p. C-129). The 2016 Monk report also includes Wetland IW-9 in its Attachment A Table of Aquatic Resources. However, the wetland is absent from the Monk October 2016 Confirmed Aquatic Resources Delineation Map/USACE 2016 Wetland Verification Map (DEIR Appendix C, p. C-419) and the wetlands are re-numbered accordingly. The wetland's absence is carried through in the DEIR figures and analysis. There is no wetland determination data sheet to support the wetland's inclusion or exclusion and no discussion of the change in the DEIR or supporting documents. It is not clear if the omission was purposeful or an oversight; however, IW-9, as originally shown in the 2016 Monk report, is not included in the DEIR impact analysis.

The DEIR Exhibit 3.3-3 includes Wetland W-90 within the Project footprint and excludes it from the proposed wetland preserve. However, there is no discussion of direct or indirect impacts to W-90 included in the DEIR.

2.3.2 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

2.3.2.1 Hydrology Impacts
The DEIR states underground piping will convey stormwater from the Project's new pollutant generating impervious surfaces to bioretention and detention basins on the north boundary of the development. The DEIR Exhibit 3.3-4 identifies "passive or active control device to allow treated stormwater to enter the [created] wetland swale." However, the Project documents do not identify how site drainage patterns to and hydrology sources in the unimpacted wetlands will be maintained. Without pre-Project and post-Project water budget analyses for the site wetlands, their determination that additional wetlands will not be impacted is not supported.

2.3.2.2 Water Quality Impacts
The Project proposes use of a specialized biosoil in the bioretention facility to remove pollutants. However, DEIR Section 3.8.6 states: "The wetland preserve would facilitate the natural sequestration of pollutants of stormwater leaving the project site." Incorporation of the wetland preserve into the Project's post-construction stormwater management strategy would have long-term detrimental impacts to these wetlands and does not support their determination that additional wetlands will not be impacted.

S&W

7 8
9 979
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
5 2.3.2.3 Reduced Buffer Widths
The State Procedures manual (CSWRCB, 2019a) states that buffers help "ensure the longterm viability of those [aquatic] resources" and that "buffers may also provide habitat or corridors necessary for the ecological functioning of aquatic resources." The Corps South Pacific Division requires that mitigation plans "provide and maintain a buffer of at least 100 feet around all vernal pool preserves and mitigation sites" in their draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools supplement (Corps, 2016b). Buffer widths between wetlands and the Project footprint are not provided, but use of the DEIR figures' scales suggests they are less than 100 feet in many places, particularly adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project footprint.

DEIR Exhibit 3.3-3 Phase 1 Wetland Impacts, Wetlands IW-7, 8, 9 and 10, appear to show an approximately 100-foot buffer adjacent to the Project. However, the buffer areas are identified as 'Proposed Landscape Areas.' This is not further defined, and it is not clear if the proposed landscape area buffers will consist of native or ornamental plants and whether they will be intensely maintained as manipulated landscape areas. Indirect impacts to these wetlands through a disturbed or landscaped buffer are not discussed in the DEIR.

Further, the connections and corridor between the wetlands in the southeastern Project area (Wetlands IW-7 to IW-10) and the remaining wetland complex to the north and east will disappear once the wetlands are flanked by the development. This corridor disconnection, the overall reduction of undeveloped buffer widths of wetlands that remain post-Project, and the indirect effects on the site wetlands are not analyzed or discussed.

2.3.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The State Procedures manual (CSWRCB, 2019a) requires that compensatory mitigation be developed using a watershed profile, which "shall include information sufficient to evaluate direct, secondary (indirect), and cumulative impacts of [a] project…" The DEIR does not include an analysis of indirect impacts to wetland function associated with reduced buffer widths and increased noise, lights, and traffic compared to that of the existing condition.

The DEIR does not include an analysis of cumulative wetland impacts that incorporates current development trends in the area and the associated continued aquatic habitat fragmentation.

2.4 Proposed Mitigation
Our review of the adequacy of the Project's proposed mitigation in offsetting the Project's wetland-related impacts follows.

S&W

10a
10b
10c
11 12
980
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
6 2.4.1 Wetland Mitigation
The DEIR includes a conceptual mitigation plan shown in Exhibit 3.34 that provides a proposed wetland preservation area adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project and states that a detailed Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be prepared but is not included in the DEIR. The DEIR states that the plan will propose to preserve 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acre of vernal pools; create 0.992 acre of seasonal wetlands in advance of, or concurrent with, Phase 1; and create 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools in advance of Phase 2.

We are unable to evaluate if the proposed mitigation will adequately replace lost wetland function because the DEIR and supporting documentation does not include an assessment of impacted wetland function. Additionally, a water budget analysis, typically supported by hydrology monitoring in the proposed wetland creation areas, is not included. Overall, the Project does not provide the information necessary to determine that the proposed wetland acreages can be successfully created.

Our review of conceptual mitigation elements provided in the DEIR follows.

2.4.1.1 Mitigation Ratios
The Project proposes to mitigate for Phases 1 and 2 wetland impacts at 2:1 and 1:1 mitigation to impact ratios, respectively. The DEIR justifies the lower Phase 2 mitigation ratio because the mitigation will be constructed "at least 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction." Both Devlin Road and Green Island Biological Resource reports, two nearby projects that have completed project permitting, identify 2:1 as the typical Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board required ratio. Of note, unlike this Project, the Devlin Road and Green Island projects did not impact vernal pool wetlands (Monk, 2018 and 2019). The Corps’ Final 2015 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Division identifies vernal pools as both "difficult to replace resources" and "regionally significant habitat types," (Corps, 2015) making vernal pool wetland creation an inherently high risk mitigation that warrants a higher than typical mitigation ratio.

A State guidance document that includes mitigation requirements, Staff Report Including the Substitute Environmental Documentation for the State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures Staff Report), lists the difficulties of wetland replacement, using vernal pools as an example, and identifies mitigation that requires supporting structures, such as the Project’s proposed detention basin system and outfall, as factors that would increase required mitigation ratios (CSWRCB, 2019b). Successful wetland creation is largely driven by ability to provide appropriate hydrology, however, hydrologic analysis that S&W

12 13a
981
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
7 demonstrates wetland creation potential in the proposed mitigation area is not provided in the DEIR.

The Procedures Staff Report also identifies use of a mitigation bank as an avenue to avoid mitigating for temporal wetland loss, similar to the Project's justification for mitigating Phase 2 at a 1:1 ratio. However, the construction schedule for Phase 2 is not set, with references to both concurrent and possibly back-to-back construction. Mitigation banks must demonstrate achieved wetland functions, frequently over several years, prior to the sale of credits. The Project's assumption that the proposed constructed wetlands will have replaced all lost wetland function at the time of Phase 2 construction is not supported by the information provided and therefore, neither is the proposed 1:1 mitigation ratio. Further, the Corps states that mitigation ratios greater than 1:1 are typically required because "mitigation sites often provide reduced functions compared to the impacted aquatic resources (Corps, 2015).”
Although ultimately the required compensatory mitigation ratios will be provided and approved by the regulatory agencies, the proposed ratios in the DEIR are low given the information provided above.

2.4.1.2 Mitigation Sequencing
The 1990 Federal Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement between the Corps and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires applicants to complete a thorough mitigation sequencing process, wherein impacts to aquatic resources are first avoided to the maximum extent practicable, remaining impacts are minimized, and unavoidable impacts are then offset through compensatory mitigation (Corps and EPA, 1990). The DEIR does not address how the Project completed the required mitigation sequencing process during design, including but not limited to design decisions regarding building size and/or location, and whether higher quality and higher functioning aquatic resources were prioritized for avoidance.

2.4.1.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Performance Standards The Project proposes five years of monitoring, the minimum required in the State Procedures. The Corps Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for the South Pacific Division (Corps, 2015) identifies vernal pools as an aquatic resource that warrants longer monitoring periods than the standard five years: "Monitoring periods of more than 5 years are warranted for aquatic resources with slow development rates.

Examples of such aquatic resources within the South Pacific Division include vernal pools… (Corps, 2015)." The Corps' Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools supplement further requires that vernal pool construction projects be monitored for a S&W

13a
13b
14 15a
982
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
8 minimum of ten years. (Corps, 2016b). The DEIR proposed five-year mitigation monitoring period is not consistent with these federal guidelines.

Mitigation measure BIO-3d in Section 3.3 of the DEIR provides performance standards to be incorporated into the Project mitigation plan. Performance standards are tools to assess achievement of the mitigation's stated goals and objectives. The DEIR Section 3-03 Mitigation Measure states that the "basic objective of the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is to ensure that project wetland impacts, and compensatory mitigation proposed to offset the wetland impacts, shall provide a no-net loss of area of wetlands, and wetlands established/created shall be in-kind to the wetlands impacted." More detailed mitigation goals and objectives that would relate to the project's impacts to wetlands with varied habitat conditions (e.g., isolated vs. non-isolated) are not included in the DEIR.

Without an understanding of the impacted wetland functions, there is no basis for establishing meaningful mitigation goals and associated meaningful ecological performance standards to achieve no net loss.

The Procedures Staff Report outlines the problematic trend mirrored by the DEIR in focusing on mitigation area and vegetation cover requirements without replacing lost ecological function, resulting in failure to comply with the State's 'no net loss' policy (CSWRCB, 2019b). Further, the State Procedures manual states: "The use of reference aquatic resources to establish performance standards will help ensure that those performance standards are reasonably achievable, by reflecting the range of variability exhibited by the regional class of aquatic resources as a result of natural processes and anthropogenic disturbances." The DEIR does not describe use of reference wetlands in the mitigation approach, which is needed to define the performance standards.

2.4.2 Buffer Mitigation
City policy 8.3.1 requires, "Where riparian corridors are retained, they shall be protected by an adequate buffer width of a minimum 100-foot protection zone…" The Corps South Pacific Division requires that mitigation plans "provide and maintain a buffer of at least 100 feet around all vernal pool preserves and mitigation sites" in their draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools supplement (Corps, 2016b). Proposed buffer widths associated with No Name Creek and the associated wetlands are not discussed in the DEIR or supporting documents nor labeled in the figures. However, an approximate use of the figure scale suggests that buffer widths adjacent to the Project are less than 100 feet in many places.

DEIR Exhibit 3.3-4 Wetland Mitigation Plan states that the project will "plant trees and shrubs in select locations adjacent to established wetlands on the east and west side and adjacent to No Name Creek." The DEIR does not include extent (area) or specific locations S&W

15a
15b
16a
16b
983
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
9 of plantings and does not state whether these plantings will be maintained, incorporated into the mitigation performance standards, and monitored. The lack of Project buffer impact analysis makes it difficult to evaluate if the proposed buffer plantings are adequate compensation to replace lost buffer function.
3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES REVIEW

3.1 Supporting Documentation
Our review and assessment of potential impacts of the Project on groundwater resources relied on the following documents:
ƒ Section 3.8 of the DEIR – Hydrology and Water Quality ƒ Draft Water Supply Assessment (DWSA) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (Balance Hydrologics, 2021)

3.2 Water Supply Demand
The water supply to the Project, as defined in the DEIR, will not be derived from groundwater and therefore will not diminish groundwater levels.

The Project's water demand will be supplied by the City. Potential impacts to groundwater levels and flows due to the Project's water supply demand are therefore predicated on the sources of water from which the City derives its water supply and the degree to which the Project demand affects the City's projected future supplies. Both of these issues are discussed and evaluated in the DWSA, which relied on the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Kennedy Jenks Consultants, 2016).

The DWSA states that, at present, the City does not rely on groundwater for any part of its supply. Section 2.3 of the DWSA does, however, indicate that the City may consider adding groundwater as a source, depending on needs and opportunities.

The DWSA indicates that the Project's stated water supply demand falls within the City's anticipated supply through 2040 and would not prevent the City from meeting the anticipated demands, even in progressively dry years. These conclusions are based on their following assumptions:
ƒ Between 23% and 32% of the Project's water supply demand will be filled by recycled water. Achieving this goal is predicated on the Project being hooked up to the City's recycled water infrastructure. The DWSA indicates that use of the recycled water is feasible given the City's projected expansion in demand and their capacity to meet that demand.

S&W

16b
17 18a
18b
984
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
10 ƒ The City will be able to capitalize on carryover water from the State Water Plan as described in Section 4.2.1 of the DWSA to make up for shortfalls during dry periods, or the City's actual consumption will continue to be significantly below projected demand as was recorded in the six years between 2015 and 2020. ƒ Project water demand conforms to the following stated estimates.

Potable water use:
- Phase 1: 10.8 acre-feet per year (afy)
- Phase 2: 13.1 afy
Recycled water use:
- Phase 1: 37.0 afy
- Phase 2: 45.0 afy
The DWSA states that the Project will be required to comply with the City's Zero Water Footprint policy, which will require the Project to commit to offsetting their potable water demand through off-site conservation measures. The DEIR does not address this requirement. To meet this requirement, the Project will be required to offset 100% of their potable water consumption through one or more types of actions that reduce the City's water consumption. The DWSA describes some potential qualifying actions as follows. ƒ Funding conversion of irrigated landscape areas to recycled water. ƒ Funding or assisting the City to improve the efficiency of the City’s water distribution system by reducing system losses.

3.3 Loss of Recharge
The proximity of the Project to groundwater discharge areas limits reductions in groundwater recharge due to the conversion of open space to impervious surfaces.

The Project is located less than two miles from the wetland areas associated with the Napa River and Fagan Marsh, which are the discharge areas for the surficial aquifer in the Project area. The water table (uppermost groundwater level) within that proximity to groundwater discharge areas is expected to be shallow, leaving little space available for groundwater storage. Infiltration recharge is expected to be small and not expected to contribute significantly to groundwater flow. A reduction in pervious surface will therefore not likely change the groundwater water budget for the groundwater basin.

S&W

18b
18c
19 985
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
11 4 HIGH LEVEL STORMWATER REVIEW

4.1 Supporting Documentation
Our review and assessment of potential stormwater-related impacts of the Project focused only on the completeness of the analyses described in the DEIR with respect to the size and scope of the Project. The accuracy of the referenced studies was not evaluated. Our review relied on and was limited to the following documents.
ƒ Section 3.8 of the DEIR – Hydrology and Water Quality ƒ Draft Water Supply Assessment (DWSA) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (Balance Hydrologics, 2021)
ƒ Memo on Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling for the Proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center (Balance Hydrologics, 2020)

4.2 Summary
The DWSA acknowledges that the Project will be required to prepare a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) in accordance with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association Post-Construction Manual that must describe post-construction stormwater treatment measures, such as bioretention facilities and source control Best Management Practices, and a strategy for the ongoing maintenance of those facilities. A SCP has not been included in the DEIR.

The DEIR does describe the results of a preliminary assessment that focused on the potential change in peak runoff associated with Phase 1 of the Project. Important findings and dependencies include the following:
ƒ The Project will leave approximately 22.6% (47 acres) of the 208 acres as open space. ƒ The Project will be required to demonstrate a 10% reduction in peak runoff flows from the current (pre-developed) condition.
ƒ Modeling performed as part of the preliminary assessment demonstrates that more than the required 10% reduction in peak runoff flows will be achieved through the development and implementation of two detention basins, one bioretention area dedicated for water quality, and one basin sized to comply with both flood control and water quality treatment standards.
ƒ Only Phase 1 was considered.
ƒ The ability of the Project to meet the 10% reduction requirement for Phase 1 appears to be dependent on the construction of the Devlin Road extension, which will result in more than the required reductions in peak flow runoff.

S&W

20 21
986
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
12 ƒ It does not appear that Phase 2 construction will benefit from the Devlin Road extension or a feature similar to it in function with respect to stormwater retention. It therefore appears likely that the size of the detention basins and bioretention areas for the Phase 2 component of the Project will likely have to be larger than those planned for Phase 1. 5 MAIN CONCLUSIONS
ƒ More wetland was present on the project site during the 2016 Monk delineation fieldwork than is reflected in the Monk report and DEIR. ƒ Wetland impact analysis is not complete; namely, it is lacking analysis and discussion of impacted wetland functions, impacts associated with reduced buffer widths, impacts associated with modified surface water drainage, and cumulative impacts associated with the area’s development trends.
ƒ We are unable to evaluate if the proposed conceptual mitigation will adequately offset wetland impacts because impacted wetland functions are not evaluated nor has analysis been completed to support the probable success of wetland creation. ƒ Proposed wetland mitigation ratios for Phases 1 and 2 are low, given State and Federal guidance.
ƒ The proposed five-year mitigation monitoring period is not consistent with Corps guidelines for compensatory mitigation involving vernal pool wetlands. ƒ The DEIR lacks detailed mitigation goals and objectives and associated performance standards. The provided conceptual mitigation does not incorporate reference wetlands in the strategy and as presented, is not sufficient to comply with the State's no-net-loss policy.
ƒ The Project will not have a significant adverse impact on groundwater resources. ƒ It does not appear that Phase 2 construction will benefit from the Devlin Road extension or a feature similar to it in function with respect to stormwater retention. ƒ It appears likely that the size of the detention basins and bioretention areas for the Phase 2 component of the Project will have to be larger than those planned for Phase 1.

The preliminary hydrologic assessment required for the proposed project is therefore incomplete.
6 REFERENCES
Balance Hydrologics, 2020, Preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center: Memorandum from Johnny Caspers and Ed Ballman, Balance Hydrologics, Berkeley, Calif., to Andrea Ballanca, Carlson, Barbee, and Gibson, Inc., San Ramon, Calif., December 3.

S&W

21 22
23 987
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
13 Balance Hydrologics, 2021, Draft water supply assessment for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project: Prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Berkeley, Calif., for Buzz Oates Construction, Inc., Sacramento, Calif.

California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB), 2019a, State policy for water quality control: state wetland definition and procedures for discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the state (rev.): April 2, 44 p., available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/2021/proce dures.pdf.

California State Water Resources Control Board (CSWRCB), 2019b, Staff report including the substitute environmental documentation, state policy for water quality control:
state wetland definition and procedures for discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the state (rev.): April 2, SCH#2011012009, 253 p., available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2021/staffreport.pdf.

Firstcarbon Solutions, 2022, Draft environmental impact report, Giovannoni Logistics Center project, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California, State Clearinghouse Number 2021010104: Report prepared by Firstcarbon Solutions, Irvine, Calif., for City of American Canyon, Calif., May.

Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., 2021, Biological resources report, Giovannoni Logistics Center, American Canyon, California: Report prepared by for Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., San Rafael, Calif., for Buzz Oates Construction, Inc., Sacramento, Calif., May.

Kennedy Jenks Consultants, 2016, Final 2015 urban water management plan: Report prepared by Kennedy Jenks Consultants, no 1568037*00, for the City of American Canyon, June, available:

Kehttps://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17856/6 37123637363600000.

Monk and Associates, 2016a, Request for a confirmed/approved jurisdictional determination aquatic resources delineation report, Giovannoni property, City of American Canyon, Napa County, California: Report prepared by Monk and Associates, Walnut Creek, Calif., for Albert D. Giovannoni Trust, Napa, Calif., August, 308 p.

Monk and Associates, 2016b, Confirmed aquatic resources delineation map, Giovannoni project site, City of American Canyon, California: October, 1 p.

Monk and Associates, 2018, Biological resource analysis, Devlin Road/ vine trail extension project, City of American Canyon, California: Report prepared by Monk and Associates, Walnut Creek, Calif., for GHD, Inc., Santa Rosa, Calif., October, 67 p.

S&W

23 988
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
14 Monk and Associates, 2019, Biological resources analysis, Green Island Road reconstruction and widening project, City of American Canyon, California: Report prepared by Monk and Associates, Walnut Creek, Calif., for City of American Canyon, Calif., July, 74 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 1987, Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual: Vicksburg, Miss., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report Y-87-1, 143 p., available:
http://www.cpe.rutgers.edu/wetlands/1987-army-corps-wetlands-delineationmanual.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2005, Regulatory guidance letter, Expiration of geographic jurisdictional determinations of waters of the United States, June, 3 p., available: https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/rgls/rgl05-

02.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2014, Arid west 2014 regional wetland plant list:

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, April, 51p., available:
https://wetlandplants.sec.usace.army.mil/nwpl_static/data/DOC/lists_2014/Regions/pdf/reg_AW_ 2014v1.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2015, Final 2015 regional compensatory mitigation and monitoring guidelines for South Pacific division: January, 70 p., available:
https://www.spd.usace.army.mil/portals/13/docs/regulatory/mitigation/mitmon.pd f.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2016a, Regulatory guidance letter, jurisdictional determinations: Letter no. 16-01, October, 8 p., available:
https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/regulatory/resources/RGL/RGL16 -01.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2016b, Draft mitigation and monitoring guidelines for vernal pools: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division, November, 23 p., available:
https://www.spd.usace.army.mil//Portals/13/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/DVPG L.pdf.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990, Memorandum of agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation under Clean Water Act Section 494(b)(1) guidelines: February 6, 6 p., available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/documents/1990_armyepa_mitigation_moa.pdf.

S&W

23 989
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Water Resources Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report 109577-001 July 19, 2022
15 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, 2008, Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: arid west region (v. 2.0): Vicksburg, Miss., U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center, Report ERDC\EL TR-08-28, 133 p., available:
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7627.

S&W

23 990
1 Todd R. Kincaid, PhD._SENIOR ASSOCIATE

HYDROGEOLOGIST

EDUCATION
PhD, Karst Geohydrology, University of Wyoming, 1999
MS, Hydrogeology, University of Florida, 1994
BS, Geology, University of Florida, 1991

SUMMARY - BIO
Todd is an expert in hydrogeologic modeling and karst hydrogeology having worked extensively on the characterization and computer simulation of complex groundwater flow regimes in numerous aquifers around the world for water resources, mining, groundwater contamination, and dam leakage projects. Since 1999, he has led a team focused on modeling geology, groundwater flow, and contaminant transport through varied types of complex aquifers including the karstifed limestones in Florida, heterogeneous glacial sediments in New York and Pennsylvania; fractured rocks in Pennsylvania and Washington; and structurally complex volcanic and sedimentary rocks underlying Yucca Mountain and the Nevada National Security Site, Nevada. He has also designed and conducted numerous successful groundwater tracing projects in karst and fractured rock aquifers of Florida, Brazil, and Washington, and developed methods of incorporating tracertesting results into hybrid numerical models of groundwater flow and erodibility along dissolutionally enhanced fracture flow paths. Todd has also lectured extensively at professional and public meetings, designed and taught professional short courses on karst hydrogeology and modeling, and provided expert testimony regarding the reliability of groundwater models.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
HDR Engineering, Bounder Interceptor, Bounder CO. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Modeler.

Todd developed and implemented analytical groundwater models to predict the number of wells and pumping rates required to achieve target drawdown levels within excavation footprints along the a pipeline installation alignment that passed close to lakes and the unit extent boundary of a surficial aquifer; the depth and spatial extent of the cone-of-depression that will develop as a consequence of dewatering; and the distance from the excavation footprints over which the predicted drawdown will exceed 10 feet.

Water Services and Technologies, FEFLOW Model Review, Pontal Dam – Itabira Mining Complex, Minas Gerais Brazil. Hydrogeologist Groundwater Modeler. Todd reviewed modeling reports describing the construction and calibration of a finite-element numerical model of groundwater flow into, through, and under existing and proposed dykes developed to constrain dewatering discharge and precipitation runoff between mine tailings and waste rock piles. Todd developed an independent assessment of model reliability and provided suggestions for further analyses aimed at more fully documenting and reporting on model reliability and limitations.

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Review, Proposed Barton Road Logistics Center, Colton CA. Hydrogeologist. Todd reviewed the hydrogeologic and hydrologic sections of a draft EIR and supporting data; researched, compiled, and reviewed other relevant publicly available data; and prepared a report describing the potential impacts of a proposed development on groundwater levels with respect to California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).

S&W

24 991
2 Laird Cowley PLLC, Hydrogeologic Data Review, Stillwater Mine, Red Lodge MT.

Hydrogeologist. Todd compiled and reviewed hydraulic head, shut-in pressure, and surface water level data and analyses collected and prepared by the mine and other consultants and developed opinions regarding the probability of encountering high pressure water zones during drilling.

Todd worked as part of a team of experts to inform legal staff during litigation regarding a tunnel flooding event.

Sound Transit, West Seattle – Ballard Link Extensions, Seattle/King WA. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Modeler. Todd developed and implemented analytical groundwater models to predict the number of wells and pumping rates required to achieve target drawdown levels within station and crossover cavern excavation footprints along the tunnel alignment; the depth and spatial extent of the cone-of-depression that will develop as a consequence of dewatering; and the distance from the excavation footprints over which the predicted drawdown will exceed 10 feet.

Brown and Caldwell, OCSD TPAD Plant 2 Dewatering Assessment, Huntington Beach/Orange CA. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Modeler. Todd developed and implemented a numerical groundwater flow modeling using the GMS software to predict the number of wells and pumping rates required to achieve target drawdown levels within the TPAD Plant 2 excavation footprint. Simulations were developed for scenarios involving natural conditions, cement deep soil mixing (CDSM) within the excavation footprint, and seven different cutoff wall configurations installed around the excavation/dewatering area. Todd used model results to delineate the depth and spatial extent of the cone-of-depression that will develop as a consequence of dewatering; and the distance from the excavation footprint over which the predicted drawdown will exceed 10 feet.

HDR Engineering, Lake Hills Trunk and Northwest Lake Sammamish Interceptor Project, Redmond/King WA. Hydrogeologist, Groundwater Modeler. Todd developed and implemented a numerical groundwater flow modeling using the GMS software to predict the number of wells and pumping rates required to achieve target drawdown levels within excavation footprints along the pipeline alignment; the depth and spatial extent of the cone-of-depression that will develop as a consequence of dewatering and the areas where the cone-of-depression will intersect critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) I and II zones; the distance from the excavation footprints over which the predicted drawdown will exceed 2 feet; and the percentage of pumped water for dewatering operations that will be drawn from the adjacent Sammamish River.

Southern Nevada Water Authority, Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model for Las Vegas Valley, Las Vegas/Clark NV. Geologic framework (EarthVision) modeler. The Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) is developing a basin-scale numerical groundwater resource model to help them manage artificial aquifer recharge and groundwater withdrawals in the Las Vegas Valley. Todd developed a geologic framework model (GFM) of the Las Vegas Valley that will provide the hydrostratigraphic framework for numerical groundwater flow modeling. The modeling effort included the synthesis of multiple geophysical datasets and geologic maps into a map of the bottom of the basin fill material, modeling thrust and normal faults in the underlying basement rocks, synthesizing borehole data and published conceptual models into a hydrostratigraphic delineation of the basin fill, and assembling basement, volcanic, and basin fill units into a 3D model using ArcGIS and EarthVision™. Todd also trained SNWA staff on geologic modeling with the EarthVision software.

S&W

992
3 US Department of Energy, Geologic Structural Modeling, Nevada National Security Site, Las Vegas/Clark, NV. Todd led the development of a set of geological framework models to characterize the extent and magnitude of contamination resulting from historical underground nuclear testing. The models were created in EarthVision™ to simulate multiple faults that offset approximately 60 different discontinuous and variably thick hydrostratigraphic units, including carbonates, lava flows, welded and non-welded tuffs, and alluvial sediments. He and his team developed automated processes that allowed for rapid model revisions; a methodology for rapidly exporting the geological framework to flow modeling codes; and simulating radionuclide transport through the carbonate hydrostratigraphic units using FEFLOW™.

Puget Sound Energy, Groundwater Tracing & Numerical Modeling, Lower Baker Dam/Skagit, WA. Todd designed, constructed, and managed groundwater tracing programs at the Lower Baker Dam that defined connections and travel times between points of leakage in the forebay, discrete zones within boreholes drilled adjacent to the dam, and several discharge vents in the plunge pool. Managed the design and development of a numerical groundwater flow model constructed with the software FEFLOW™ that simulated leakage along discrete fracture flow pathways identified in a Leapfrog™ 3D geologic model and verified through groundwater tracing. Developed 3D models of simulated heads using EarthVision™ to create cross-sectional profiles of heads across key structural surfaces and calculate and rank erodibility along the fracture flow paths to support structural stability analyses.

Nexa Resources, Groundwater Tracing to an Underground Mine, Vazante, Brazil. Todd designed and conducted groundwater tracing studies that identified discrete leakage locations along a 10 km stretch of river flowing over karstic carbonate rocks and the locations of discharge into a 5 km section of underground mine tunnels spanning six elevation levels. The project involved numerous tracer injections into the river and long-term continuous sampling at more than a dozen locations within the underground mine workings using manual and automated samplers. Results included positive confirmation of connection to the river at multiple locations in the mine; and a hydrogeologic conceptual model of the mechanisms responsible for river water leakage into the mine tunnels.

Alachua County Environmental Protection Dept., Basin-Scale Water Budget Analysis, North Central Florida. Todd led an effort to define aquifer recharge in surficial aquifer and Floridan aquifer basins in north-central Florida that relied on streamflow data and a compilation of groundwater extraction records and estimates, swallet flow and lake storage measurements, and reported return flows to define recharge to surficial aquifer where present and unconfined portions of the upper Floridan aquifer as well as leakage from the surficial aquifer through the upper confining layers into the upper Floridan aquifer. There work culminated in the development of a spreadsheet tool that was delivered to County staff along with training on its use and the water budget science underlying the method. Their work is intended to support reviews of regional scale groundwater resource models and evaluation of impacts associated with consumptive use permitting.

Hull and Associates, HollyFrontier Corporation, Property Modeling, Tulsa/Tulsa, OK. Todd developed and inter-related 2D and 3D property models to delineate the horizontal and vertical extent of Light Non-aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) plumes at an operational oil refinery and estimate total recoverable volumes. Models addressed geotechnical response properties, historical water table and apparent product thicknesses, underground structures, and key hydrostratigraphic surfaces. Property datasets included 4-channel Laser-Induced Fluorescence (LIF), Membrane Interface Probe (MIP) responses from a Flame Ionization Detector (FID) and Photo-Ionization S&W

993
4 Detector (PID), Hydraulic Profiling Tool (HPT), and Electrical Conductivity (EC) responses recorded by all three tools.

HDR Engineering, Contaminant Transport Modeling, Central North Carolina. Lead Hydrogeologic Modeler. Todd led the development of five numerical models of dissolved phase cation and anion transport from coal ash basins through surficial and bedrock aquifer toward sensitive receptors including rivers and private and public supply water wells. The groundwater flow models were constructed in MODFLOW-NWT and MT3DMS. Modeled constituents included: antimony, chromium, hexavalent chromium, vanadium, and sulfate. Our team was part of a larger team of modelers assembled to complete modeling assessments required of HDR’s client under a consent order agreement. All models were constructed, calibrated, and completed within an approximately six-month timeframe such that results could be included in the reports submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources within the required deadlines.

City of Tallahassee, Basin-Scale Water Budget Analysis, North Florida, South Georgia. Todd led an effort to define recharge into the surficial aquifer and leakage through the confining unit overlying the Floridan aquifer that relied on streamflow data for several sub-watershed basins in Georgia and Florida north of Tallahassee, FL. Leakage values for each basin were used to develop an empirical relationship between confining unit thickness and leakage that they used to provide the City with a map estimating recharge throughout the City on the basis of thickness of the underlying Miocene age confining unit. The maps were used by the City to help guide water reuse programs such that recharge to the Floridan aquifer was maximized.

ERM, Exxon-Mobile, Groundwater Flow & Contaminant Transport Modeling, Ontario/ San Bernardino, CA. Todd led an effort to develop a 3D digital conceptual site model and 3D numerical groundwater flow model of the West Coast Groundwater Basin surrounding Torrance, California using EarthVision™ and FEFLOW™. The model addressed hydrostratigraphic and structural relationships between the Gage/Gardena, Hollydale, Jefferson, Lynwood, and Silverado aquifers and the hydraulic properties of the Charnock Fault that crosses the upper half of the basin from northwest to southeast. The EarthVision CSM provided the framework for the FEFLOW groundwater flow model as well as a platform for the visualization of hydraulic communication between the aquifers through intervening confining layers. Regional water supply wells and the line of injection wells along the Pacific coast were included in the model such that predictions of the influence of pumping and injection on contaminant capture could be reliably rendered.

Capture zones and the influence of the fault and regional wells were evaluated with 3D particle tracks exported from the FEFLOW model and visualized in GIS and the EarthVision CSM.

COAST, Nitrogen Loading to the Indian River Lagoon and Wakulla/St Marks River from OSTDS, St. Augustine/St. Johns, FL. Lead Hydrogeologic Modeler. Todd and his team identified the number and location of active onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS) and developed a numerical groundwater flow/contaminant transport model to quantify nitrogen loading to the Indian River from existing and projected OSTDS in southern Brevard County, FL. Modeling was performed using FEFLOW™. They identified 178,271 active OSTDS producing a total N load of 10,708 lbs/day to groundwater within the two basins. Their modeling showed that nitrogen loading from OSTDS results in groundwater concentrations up to 170 mg/l and estimated travel times between OSTDS locations and surficial water bodies ranging from days to 50 years with an average travel time of 5.1 years.

S&W

994
5 Tarmac America, Inc., Springs Mapping & Karst Aquifer Characterization, Waccasassa Bay Florida. Surveyed the Waccasassa Bay, west Central Florida to find, identify, and document spring discharges and karst features. Field verified hypothesized spring discharges based on the results of a USGS thermal anomaly survey of onshore and offshore regions using electrical conductivity surveys. Developed a conceptual model of groundwater flow patterns based on the results of the springs surveys, available potentiometric surface data, and aquifer performance tests performed at the proposed King Road quarry.

US Department of Defense, Tetra Tech EC, Geologic and Numerical Groundwater Modeling, DECP facility, Philadelphia/Philadelphia, PA. Todd led the development of a linked geological-groundwater flow model that simulates a 3D heterogeneous multi-aquifer system beneath the former DSCP facility in Philadelphia PA impacted by more than two million gallons of light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL). Regional and site-scale solids models developed in EarthVision™ defined the geospatial relationship between the LNAPL plume, discrete discontinuous soil and rock zones, and buried utilities. A 3D numerical groundwater flow model constructed in FEFLOW™ was calibrated to 176 surficial aquifer and 20 deep aquifer wells using a Lipschitzian parameter optimization algorithm. Visualizations depicted flow paths from the LNAPL plume to property boundaries and into the deep aquifer in support of site closure plans.

Florida Geological Survey, Groundwater Tracing, Karst Aquifer Characterization and Numerical Groundwater Flow Modeling, Woodville Karst Plain, Woodville Karst Plain/North Florida. Todd was the lead scientist and project manager for a multi-faceted karst aquifer characterization effort that successfully established hydraulic connections between sinking streams and a municipal wastewater spray field, and several very large magnitude springs over distances of miles to tens of miles; and resulted in a first-of-its-kind dual-permeability numerical model of groundwater flow that simulated tracer defined groundwater flow paths, spring discharges, and regional pumping and head distributions. Also organized public education programs including workshops, short courses, field trips, and public presentations focusing on the ongoing results of the effort.

Coca-Cola North America, Hybrid Numerical Modeling of karstic groundwater flow, North Central Florida, Florida. Todd led the development of a regional-scale hybrid numerical model of groundwater flow through mapped, traced, and inferred conduits to numerous springs along the western Santa Fe River, and the exchange of groundwater between conduits and the aquifer matrix. Model was simultaneously calibrated to time periods representing high water and low water conditions; identified the impact of pumping on spring flows; and defined well and spring vulnerabilities to nitrate loading from intense agricultural operations and municipal wastewater disposal based on simulated travel times. Model-defined springshed boundaries were incorporated into the FDEP’s BMAP.

Ginnie Springs Outdoors, Numerical Groundwater Model Evaluation, North Central Florida.

Todd led an effort to test the validity and reliability of the predicted impacts of groundwater pumping to spring and river flows and upper Florida Aquifer groundwater levels generated by the Suwannee River Water Management District’s regional numerical North Florida Model (NFM).

Model evaluations included comparisons of: 1) assigned recharge to verifiable groundwater discharge; 2) simulated vs. tracer-defined flow paths and travel-times; 3) the identification of unreported residuals between simulated heads at rivers and springs and the target heads defined in river and drain node assignments; and 4) simulated vs. measured drawdowns at large municipal well fields.

S&W

995
6 Borton Lawson Engineering, Geologic and Groundwater Flow Modeling – Bucks County, PA.

Lead Hydrogeologic Modeler. Todd and his team developed a geologic framework model and a 3D groundwater flow model that simulated groundwater flow through a complex faulted, folded fractured rock aquifer consisting of 65 stratigraphic units and multiple fault blocks. The geologic model was constructed from geologic maps that were used to project stratigraphic and structural surfaces using the EarthVision™ software. The surfaces were then used to construct a 35-layer finite-element groundwater flow model using the FEFLOW™ software. Both models were then used to simulate and visualize capture zones for municipal water wells owned and operated by five different municipalities from which wellhead protection zones were defined, published, and codified into municipal aquifer source water protection and land use ordinances.

H2H Associates, Buzzi-Unicem, Groundwater Modeling for Quarry Dewatering, Stockertown/Northampton, PA. Todd managed development of a groundwater model in a heavily karstified and geologically complex terrain in northeast Pennsylvania. Created multiple solids and groundwater flow models to simulate water table response to quarry dewatering and interactions with an adjacent stream. Identified probable karstic flow paths and defined a water budget for the quarry that quantified groundwater and re-circulated components of the pumpage.

Published and resented results to PADEP and PADOT.

STV-PB Joint Venture, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Geologic, Parameter, Groundwater Flow, Contaminant Transport Modeling, Long Island New York, NY. Todd developed a combined regional and site-scale 3D Geologic Framework Model (GFM) for the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority’s East Side Access Project that delineated the spatial relationship between key geologic horizons, multiple sorbed-phase contaminant plumes, and various engineered features. The GFM was used as the framework for a numerical groundwater flow model from which his team developed mass transport models that simulated the movement of dissolved chlorinated volatile organic compounds through the complex geology and into or around large underground tunnel structures. Data generated from the respective process models was imported back into the GFM to develop visualizations and interpretations that were presented to project management, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and legal counsel.

PUBLICATIONS
Kincaid, T.R., Romocki, R., Meyer, B.A., Annandale, G., Falvey, H., and Hultman, W., 2018.

Evaluating erodibility, mitigating leakage, and addressing potential failure modes at a concrete arch dam through groundwater modeling. Proceedings, 2018 Annual Conference of the American Society of Dam Safety Officials, Seattle WA. Available for download at Researchgate.net.

Kincaid, T. and Meyer, B., 2015. “A Dual-Calibrated, Hybrid Model of Conduit Flow to Springs in a Portion of the Floridan Aquifer in North-Central Florida”, MODFLOW and More 2015:

Modeling a Complex World, Proceedings, eds. R Maxwell, M. Hill, C. Zheng, and M. Tonkin.

Integrated Ground Water Modeling Center (IGWMC), Colorado School of Mines, Golden CO.

Kincaid, T, Davies, G, Werner, C, and DeHan, R, 2012. “Demonstrating interconnection between a wastewater application facility and a first magnitude spring in a karstic watershed: Tracer study of the Tallahassee, Florida Treated Effluent Spray Field, 2006-2007”; Report of Investigations No. 111, Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL, 192 p.

S&W

996
7 Kincaid, T.R., Day, K.E., and Lamb, R., 2011. 3D Solids and Parameter Modeling to Facilitate Triad-Compliant Rapid Site Characterization. 1) Am. Soc. Civil Eng., Proceedings of the 24th Central PA Geotechnical Conference, November 2009, Hershey, PA; 2) Transportation Research Board ADC60 Committee Waste Management & Resource Efficiency Summer Environmental Conference, New York City, July, 2009; 3) Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Groundwater Association, Las Vegas, NV. Available for download at Researchgate.net.

Kincaid, T.R. and Werner, C.L., 2008. “Conduit flow paths and conduit/matrix interaction defined by quantitative groundwater tracing in the Floridan aquifer”, in Yuhr, L.B., Alexander, E.C., and Beck, B.F. eds., Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 33, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 288-302.

Loper, D.E., Werner, C.L., DeHan, R., Kincaid, T.R., Chicken, E., and Davies, G., 2008. “Probing the plumbing of Wakulla Spring: instrumentation and preliminary results”, in Yuhr, L.B., Alexander, E.C., and Beck, B.F. eds., Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 33, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 313-324.

Meyer, B.A., Kincaid, T.R., and Hazlett, T.J., 2008. “Modeling karstic controls on watershedscale groundwater flow in the Floridan aquifer of north Florida”, in Yuhr, L.B., Alexander, E.C., and Beck, B.F. eds., Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 33, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 351-361.

Kincaid, T.R., 2007, “Karst Hydrogeology of the Santa Fe River Basin”, Fieldtrip Guidebook No. 47, Southeastern Geological Society, Tallahassee, FL. Available for download at:
http://www.geohydros.com/images/Pubs/segs_fieldguide47_sfrb2007.pdf.

Kincaid, T.R., 2006, “Karst Hydrogeology of the Woodville Karst Plain: Wakulla & St. Marks River Basins”, Field Trip Guidebook No. 46, Southeastern Geological Society, Tallahassee, FL.

Kincaid, T.R., Hazlett, T.J., and Davies, G.J., 2005, “Quantitative groundwater tracing and effective numerical modeling in karst: an example from the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida: in Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst”, Barry F. Beck ed., American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, p. 114-121. Available for download at:
http://www.geohydros.com/images/Pubs/geohydros_groundwater_tracing_wkp_asce_Sep2005.pdf.

Loper, D.E., Werner, C.L., Chicken, E., Davies, G., and Kincaid, T., 2005, “Coastal Carbonate Aquifer Sensitivity to Tides”, EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, vol. 86, no.

39. Vilardi, C.V. and Kincaid, T.R., 2002, “Design-Phase Geologic Framework Modeling for Large Construction Projects”, Proceedings: Battelle Third International Conference on the Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds, Monterey, California.

Kincaid, T.R. and Heffron, M., 2002, “Database Design & Management for 3-D Hydrogeologic Modeling at the DOD DSCP Facility, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania”, Proceedings: National Defense Industry Association Annual Meeting, Charleston, South Carolina.

S&W

997
8 Kincaid, T.R., 2001, “New Concepts for Groundwater Modeling in the Floridan Aquifer”, Proceedings of the 65th Annual Meeting of the Florida Academy of Sciences Saint Leo, Florida; Florida Scientist, Vol 64, Supplement 1.

Kincaid, T.R., 2000, “Storage-Dominated vs Flow-Dominated Caves: A Hydraulic Model for Cave Development”, Proceedings of the Underwater Science and Technology Meeting - SBT2000, December 2-3, 2000, Middle East Technical University, Ankara Turkey.

Kincaid, T.R., 2000, “Mapping and Modeling the Morphology of Underwater Caves in the Taurus Mountains and Antalya Travertine Plateau, Southern Turkey”, Proceedings of the Underwater Science and Technology Meeting - SBT2000, December 2-3, 2000, Middle East Technical University, Ankara Turkey.

Kincaid, T.R., 2000, “Speleogenesis in the Kirkgozler Region of the Taurus Mountains, Southern Turkey”, Proceedings of the Underwater Science and Technology Meeting - SBT2000, December 2-3, 2000, Middle East Technical University, Ankara Turkey.

Kincaid, T.R., 2000, “Three Dimensional Geometric Modeling and Visualization of Phreatic Karst Caves with Implications for Hydrologic and Geomorphic Studies”, in: Sasowsky, I.D. and Wicks, C.M. (eds.), Groundwater flow and contaminant transport in carbonate aquifers: A.A.

Balkema, Rotterdam, p.169-190.

Kincaid, T.R., 1999, “Morphologic and Fractal Characterization of Saturated Karstic Caves”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, 174 p.

Kincaid, T.R., 1998, “Rapid River Water Intrusion to the Unconfined Floridan Aquifer”, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, vol. 4, no. 3, College Station, Texas. Available for download at:
http://www.geohydros.com/images/Pubs/EEG_1998_Kincaid_river_water_intrusion.pdf.

Kincaid, T.R., 1997, “Ground Water – Surface Water Exchange in the Unconfined Karstified Floridan Aquifer”, Karst Waters and Environmental Impacts, Gultekin Gunay and Ivan Johnson (eds.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, p. 405-412.

Kincaid, T.R., 1994, “Groundwater and Surface Water Interactions in the Western Santa Fe River Basin near High Springs, Florida”, Master's Thesis, University of Florida.

ABSTRACTS & POSTERS
Meyer, B., Kincaid, T., and Day, K., 2015. “Integrating a Geohydrologic Framework Model into a 3D Groundwater Flow Model to Delineate Wellhead Protection Zones in Bucks County PA”, MODFLOW and More 2015: Modeling a Complex World, Proceedings, eds. R Maxwell, M. Hill, C. Zheng, and M. Tonkin. Integrated Groundwater Modeling Center (IGWMC), Colorado School of Mines, Golden CO.

Kincaid, T. and Day, K., 2013. Benefits of Automation in Hydrostratigraphic Framework Modeling – 1: A New HFM for Pahute Mesa, Nevada. MODFLOW and More 2013: Translating Science into Practice, Proceedings, eds. R. Maxwell, M. Hill, C. Zheng, and M. Tonkin.

S&W

998
9 Integrated Groundwater Modeling Center (IGWMC), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO.

Available for download at Researchgate.net.

Kincaid, T. and Meyer, B., 2013. Benefits of Automation in Hydrostratigraphic Framework Modeling – 2: Translating Geologic Framework Assignments from Solids Modeling to Flow Modeling Software. MODFLOW and More 2013: Translating Science into Practice, Proceedings, eds. R. Maxwell, M. Hill, C. Zheng, and M. Tonkin. Integrated Groundwater Modeling Center (IGWMC), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO. Available for download at Researchgate.net.

Meyer, B.A. and Kincaid, T.R., 2012. “Simulating Groundwater Flow Patterns in Quarry Vicinities Using Numerical Groundwater Flow Model”, Program with Abstracts, Nevada Water Resources Association (NWRA) Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, March, 2012.

Meyer, B.A. and Kincaid, T.R., 2012. “Developing Regional Scale Hydrogeologic Conceptual Models”, Program with Abstracts, Nevada Water Resources Association (NWRA) Annual Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, March, 2012.

Kincaid, T.R. and Meyer, B.A., 2011. “A Numerical Model of Conduit Controlled Groundwater Flow in the Floridan aquifer”, Program with Abstracts, NGWA Ground Water Summit, Baltimore, May 2011.

Kincaid, T.R., Day, K.E., and Lamb, R., 2011. “3D Solids and Parameter Modeling to Facilitate Triad-Compliant Rapid Site Characterization”, Program with Abstracts: The 2011 North American Environmental Field Conference & Exposition, San Diego, California, January 10-13, 2011.

Kincaid, T.R., Davies, G.J., and Dyer, S.B., 2010. “Tracing Reversing Groundwater Flows in the Coastal Floridan Aquifer”, Poster Presentation. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 42, No. 5, p. 434. Available for download at:
http://www.geohydros.com/images/Pubs/geohydros_spring_creek_tracing_GSA_Oct-2010.pdf.

Kincaid, T.R., Meyer, B.A., and Radtke, J., 2010. “Modeling Karstic Controls on WatershedScale Groundwater Flow in the Floridan Aquifer of North Florida”, 2nd UF Water Institute Symposium: Sustainable Water Resources – Complex Challenges, Integrated Solutions. The University of Florida and Progress Energy, Gainesville, Florida, February 24-25, 2010.

Kincaid, T.R. and Meyer, B.A., 2009. “Delineating saturated conduit patterns and dimensions in the upper Floridan aquifer through numerical groundwater flow modeling”, Program with Abstracts, 2009 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, 14-18 December, San Francisco California.

Kincaid, T.R., Day, K.E., and Lamb, R., 2009. “3D Solids and Parameter Modeling to Facilitate Triad-Compliant Rapid Site Characterization”, Proceedings of the 24th Central PA Geotechnical Conference, November 2-4, 2009, Hershey, Pennsylvania; and Transportation Research Board ADC60 Committee Waste Management & Resource Efficiency Summer Environmental Conference, New York City, July 13-15, 2009. Available for download at:
http://www.geohydros.com/images/Pubs/geohydros_3d_modeling_triad_ASCE_Nov-2009.pdf.

Kincaid, T.R., and Werner, C.L., 2009. “Hydraulic Characterization of Karst Aquifers through Quantitative Groundwater Tracing”, Program with Abstracts, 5th Conference on Hydrogeology, S&W

999
10 Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terrains, National Ground Water Association, Safety Harbor, Florida.

Kincaid, T.R. and Meyer, B.A., 2009. “Numerical Modeling in Karst Aquifers: Examples from Florida and Pennsylvania”, Program with Abstracts, 5th Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terrains, National Ground Water Association, Safety Harbor, Florida.

Kincaid, T.R., Davies, G.J., Meyer, B.A., and Hazlett, T.J., 2007. “Karst aquifer response to variations in distribution and magnitude of recharge and implications to land use planning in the Woodville Karst Plain of north Florida”, Paper No: 175-10, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 39, No. 6, p. 478.

Kincaid, T.R., Davies, G.J., Hazlett, T.J., and Meyer, B.A., 2007. “From research to results:
mitigating the impact of sewage effluent on Wakulla Spring in north Florida”, Paper No: 224-8, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 39, No. 6, p. 602.

Kincaid, T.R., and Davies, G.J., 2007. “Quantitative tracing: a powerful tool for aquifer characterization and groundwater model development”, Paper No: 221-1, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 39, No. 6, p. 595.

Kincaid, T.R., Davies, G.J., Hazlett, T.J., and Werner, C.L., 2007, “Overflow Springs and Sinks and Competing Hydraulic Gradients in the Floridan Aquifer”, Program with Abstracts, 4th Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terrains, National Ground Water Association, Safety Harbor, Florida.

Day, K.E. and Kincaid, T.R., 2007, “A Web-Based Tool for Analytical Comparison of Hydrologic Data in the Woodville Karst Plain, Florida”, Program with Abstracts, 4th Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terrains, National Ground Water Association, Safety Harbor, Florida.

Meyer, B.A., Kincaid, T.R., and Hazlett, T.J., 2007, “A Method for Integrating Detailed Karst Feature Data into Ground Water Flow Models”, Program with Abstracts, 4th Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terrains, National Ground Water Association, Safety Harbor, Florida.

Hazlett, T.J., Kincaid, T.R., and Meyer, B.A., 2007, “A Numerical Groundwater Flow Model of the Woodville Karst Plain, Florida”, Program with Abstracts, 4th Conference on Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring, and Management of Ground Water in Karst Terrains, National Ground Water Association, Safety Harbor, Florida.

Kincaid, T.R., Day, K.E., Hazlett, T.H., and, Meyer, B.A., 2006, “Characterizing Fractured Rock Aquifers through Geological Framework Modeling”, Program with Abstracts, NGWA 2006 Focus Conference on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues, Portland ME, Sep. 18-19, 2006.

Hazlett, T.J., Kincaid, T.R., Meyer, B.A., and Day, K.E., 2006, “Innovative Ground Water Supply Protection Modeling, Bucks County, Pennsylvania”, Program with Abstracts, NGWA 2006 Focus Conference on Eastern Regional Ground Water Issues, Portland ME, Sep. 18-19, 2006.

S&W

1000
11 Kincaid, T.R., Hazlett, T.H., Day, K.E., and, Meyer, B.A., 2006, “Engineering Benefits of a Geological Framework Model”, Program with Abstracts, Northeast Engineering Geology: from Till to Fill, 49th Annual Meeting, Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists, Boston MA, Oct. 30 – Nov. 4, 2006.

Kincaid, T. R., Davies, G. J., Hazlett, T. J., Loper, D., DeHan, R., and McKinlay, C., 2004, “Groundbreaking characterization of the karstified Floridan aquifer in the Woodville Karst Plain of north Florida”, Abstract No: 80344, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 36, No. 5.

Kincaid, T. R., Schmidt, W., Cook, S., Loper, D., Davies, G. J., and McKinlay, C., 2004, “Collaborating for a Better Tomorrow: Research and Community Outreach Aimed at Protecting Wakulla Spring”, Abstract No: 80391, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 36, No. 5.

Hazlett, T.J., Kincaid, T.R., Loper D., Davies, G. J., DeHan, R., and McKinlay, C., 2004, “Realistic Numerical Modeling of Ground-water Flow Based on Quantitative Site Characterization in the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida”, Abstract No: 80775, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 36, No. 5.

Davies, G. J., Kincaid, T.R., Hazlett, T.J., Loper D., DeHan, R., and McKinlay, C., 2004, “Why do quantitative tracing? Lessons and examples from the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida”, Abstract No: 81060, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 36, No. 5.

Loper D., Hazlett, T.J., Kincaid, T.R., Davies, G. J., McKinlay, C., and DeHan, R., 2004, “A Karst Hydrologic Observatory in the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida”, Abstract No:
79699, GSA Abstracts with Programs Vol. 36, No. 5.

Kincaid, T.R., Davies, G.J., DeHan, R., and Hazlett, T.J., 2004, “Characterizing rapid pointrecharge to the Floridan aquifer in the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida: implications for protecting Wakulla spring”, Paper No. 31-3, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 85.

Kincaid, T.R., Denizman, C., Arthur, J., and Hazlett, T.J., 2004, “The Florida Cave Database: a GIS of underwater caves for hydrogeological characterizations”, Paper No. 31-1, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 85.

Hazlett, T.J., Loper, D.E., and Kincaid, T.R., 2002, “A Hybrid Modeling Approach to Flow in Conduit-Dominated Karst Aquifers”, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, Abstracts with Programs.

Davies G.J., Kincaid, T.R., Hazlett, T.J., Connolly, K.A., and Jablonski, J.M., 2002, “Groundwater Tracing as a Means to Collect Data for Groundwater Model Design and Calibration”, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, Abstracts with Programs.

Kincaid, T.R., 2000, “The Relationship Between Cave Development and Spring/Aquifer Protection”, Proceedings of the 1st Annual Florida Springs Conference, February 2000, Gainesville, Florida, Florida DEP; http://susdl.fcla.edu/lfnh/related/springs.html S&W

1001
12 Kincaid, T.R., 1999, “The Role of springs in the Formation of Karstic Conduit Flow Paths: a Conceptual Model”, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Denver, Colorado, Abstracts with Programs.

Kincaid, T.R., 1999, “Volumetric fractal dimension as a quantitative descriptor for saturated cave morphology”, in: Palmer, A.N., Palmer, M.V., and Sasowsky, I.D. (eds.), Karst Modeling, Special Publication 5, Karst Waters Institute, Charles Town, West Virginia, p. 186.

Kincaid, T.R., 1997, “Investigating the Fractal Nature of Dissolution Porosity - Insights from 3- D Models of Vugs to Caves”, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 78, no. 46.

Kincaid, T.R., 1995, “Ground Water - Surface Water Exchange in the Unconfined Karstified Floridan Aquifer; A View from Inside the Aquifer with Implications for Ground Water Protection”, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, Abstracts with programs p. A180.

Kincaid, T.R., Denizman, C., and Ellins, K.K., 1992, “Using SF6 to Establish the General Recharge Area for Three Springs in the Santa Fe River, Florida”, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, Cincinnati, Ohio, Abstracts with Programs p. A300.

Ellins, K.K., Kincaid, T.R., Hisert, R.A., Johnson, N.A., Davison, C.A., and Wanninkhof, R.H., 1991, “Using Rn222 and SF6 to Determine Groundwater Gains and Stream Flow Losses in the Santa Fe River”, Hydrogeology of the Western Santa Fe River Basin, Field Trip Guidebook no.

32. Southeastern Geological Society.

Ellins, K.K., Kincaid, T.R., Hisert, R.A., Johnson, N.A., and Davison, C.A., 1991, “Using Rn222 and SF6 to Determine Groundwater Gains and Stream Flow Losses in the Santa Fe River”, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, San Diego, California, Abstracts with Programs p. A326.

Ellins, K.K., Kincaid, T.R., Hisert, R.A., Johnson, N.A., and Davison, C.A., 1991, “Using Rn222 and SF6 to Determine Groundwater Gains and Stream Flow Losses in the Santa Fe River”, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 72, no. 44.

Hisert, R.A., Ellins, K.K., Johnson, N.A., Kincaid, T.R., and Davison, C.A., 1991, “Estimating Stream Mixing Characteristics Using the Natural and Manmade Geochemical Tracers Radon222 and Sulfur Hexafluoride in the Karstic Environment of the Santa Fe River, Florida”, Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America, San Diego, California, Abstracts with Programs p.

A153.

Hisert, R.A., Ellins, K.K., Kincaid, T.R., Johnson, N.A., and Davison, C.A., 1991, “Using the Artificial Tracer Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) to Estimate Underground Flow Rates and Pathways of Water Flowing Through the Karstic Window Region of the Santa Fe River”, O’leno State Park, Florida, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 72, no. 44.

ARTICLES & REPORTS
Kincaid, T., Meyer, B., and Day, K., 2014. “Assessment of the 2008 North Florida Numerical Groundwater Flow Model Limitations & Implications for Groundwater Resource Management”, Report developed for Ginnie Springs Outdoors, LLC, High Springs Florida and submitted to the S&W

1002
13 Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Suwannee River Water Management District. Available for download at:
http://www.geohydros.com/images/Pubs/geohydros_2014_srwmd_model_review.pdf.

Kincaid, T.R., 2009. “Global Underwater Explorers – Focus on Conservation”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 10, No. 2 Spring 2009, in press.

Jarvis, T. and Kincaid, T.R., 2009. “Stinking Sinks and perpetual pot holes: gypsite karst in Laramie, WY”, The Wyoming Connection, Winter 2009, Issue 72, pp. 24-29. Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems, Glenrock, WY.

Kincaid, T.R. and Werner, C.L., 2008. “Karst Hydrogeology of the Woodville Karst Plain Florida”, Field Trip Guidebook, American Society of Civil Engineers Field Trip, September 23, 2008, Tallahassee, FL., 23 p. Available for download at:
http://www.geohydros.com/images/Pubs/geohydros_wkp_field_guide_2008.pdf.

Kincaid, T.R., 2007. “The power of connection: The WKPP’s exploration of the Wakulla-Leon Sinks Cave System”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 8, No. 4 Fall 2007, p. 8-15.

Kincaid, T.R., 2007, “Can We Save Wakulla Spring?” DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 8, No. 1 Winter 2007, p. 8-11.

Kincaid, T.R., 2006, Water Resources, Sustainability and the Public Trust, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 7, No. 2 Spring 2006, p. 17-23.

Kincaid, T.R., 2005, “Florida Cave Database & GIS”, Underwater Speleology (Journal of the National Speleological Society – Cave Diving Section), Lake City, FL, Vol. 32, No. 6, p. 14-17. - Reprint of a Dir Quest Article from 2003
Kincaid, T.R., 2005, “Problems of Groundwater & Surface Water Management Part 2”, Underwater Speleology (Journal of the National Speleological Society – Cave Diving Section), Lake City, FL, Vol. 32, No. 3, p. 18-23. - Reprint of a Dir Quest Article from 2002 Kincaid, T.R., 2005, “Problems of Groundwater & Surface Water Management”, Underwater Speleology (Journal of the National Speleological Society – Cave Diving Section), Lake City, FL, Vol. 32, No. 2, p. 13-18. - Reprint of a Dir Quest Article from 2002 Kincaid, T.R., 2005, “Hydrologic Connections”, Underwater Speleology (Journal of the National Speleological Society – Cave Diving Section), Lake City, FL, Vol. 32, No. 1, p. 8-13. Reprint of a Dir Quest Article from 2000
McKinlay, C. and Kincaid, T.R., 2004, “The Woodville Karst Plain Project (WKPP): Taking the Wakulla Cave System Live”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 5, No. 4 Fall 2004, p. 8-11.

Kincaid, T.R., 2004, “Groundwater Tracing in the Woodville Karst Plain – Part II: Getting Results”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 5, No. 2 Spring 2004, p. 21-26.

S&W

1003
14 Kincaid, T.R., 2003, “Groundwater Tracing in the Woodville Karst Plain – Part I: An Overview of Groundwater Tracing”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 4, No. 4 Fall 2003, p. 31-37.

Kincaid, T.R., 2003, “GIS and the Florida Cave Database”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 4, No. 2 Spring 2003, p. 6-9.

Kincaid, T.R., 2002, “Problems of Groundwater & Surface Water Management: Part 2”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 3, No. 2 Spring 2002, p. 7-11.

Kincaid, T.R., 2002, “Problems of Groundwater & Surface Water Management: Part 1”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 3, No. 1 Winter 2002, p. 7-11.

Kincaid, T.R., 2001, “Speleogenesis in the Kirkgozler Region of the Taurus Mountains, Southern Turkey”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 2, No. 2 Spring 2001, p. 17-22.

Kincaid, T.R., 2000, “Hydrologic Connections: Mapping groundwater flow patterns through Wakulla cave & protecting ground water resources in the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida”, DIR Quest (Journal of the Global Underwater Explorers), High Springs, Florida, Vol. 1, No. 2 Winter/Spring 2000, p. 33-38.

Kincaid, T.R., 1997, Book Review: “Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup”, Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, vol. 3, no. 3, College Station, Texas.

Kincaid, T.R., 1996, “Our New Direction”, NACD Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, National Association for Cave Diving, Gainesville, Florida.

Kincaid, T.R., 1996, “Exploring Underwater Caves in Southern Turkey - Project KarstDive 95”, Atlas Magazine, February, 1996, vol. 35, Istanbul, Turkey; Underwater Speleology, 1996, vol. 23, no. 2, National Speleological Society-Cave Diving Section NACD Journal, 1996, vol. 28, no. 1, National Association for Cave Diving, Gainesville, Florida.

Kincaid, T.R., 1995, “Science and the WKPP”, NACD Journal, 1995, vol. 27, no. 3, National Association for Cave Diving, Gainesville, Florida.

Ellins, K.K. and Kincaid, T.R., 1991, “Cave Development in the Western Santa Fe River Basin.

Hydrogeology of the Western Santa Fe River Basin”, Field Trip Guidebook no. 32. Southeastern Geological Society.

SHORT COURSES, EDUCATIONAL EXHIBITS & VIDEOS
Karst Hydrogeology in Florida with Special Focus on the Santa Fe River Basin. Hydrogeology Consortium and University of Florida TREEO Center, August 23-24 2007, Gainesville Florida.

Karst Hydrogeology in Florida with Special Focus on the Woodville Karst Plain. Hydrogeology Consortium, December 5-6 2006, Tallahassee Florida.

S&W

1004
15 Karst Hydrogeology in Florida with Special Focus on the Woodville Karst Plain. Hydrogeology Consortium, April 27-28 2006, Tallahassee Florida.

Karst Hydrogeology in Florida with Special Focus on the Woodville Karst Plain. Hydrogeology Consortium, November 14-15 2005, Tallahassee Florida.

Florida’s Awesome Aquifer, 2002. A traveling poster exhibit and educational video on karst and groundwater flow in Florida. Developed for the Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida.

Awesome Aquifer Adventure – 2001. A multi-media educational exhibit on aquifers and groundwater. Developed for the Reading Public Museum, Reading, Pennsylvania.

A Scientific Look at Underwater Caves - Spring, 1997 An educational video about underwater caves and groundwater flow in karst aquifers. Developed for the Geological Society of America Partners for Excellence Program, Boulder, Colorado.

Project KarstDive, Underwater Cave Exploration in Southern Turkey, 1997. A documentary video describing underwater cave exploration in Southern Turkey. Developed for the National Speleological Society-Cave Diving Section, Lake City, Florida.

EXPERT TESTIMONY / LITIGATION SUPPORT
St. Johns Riverkeeper, Florida Defenders of the Environment, Silver Springs Alliance, & Alice Gardner vs. St. Johns River Water Management District, Application No. 91926-4, Marion County, FL. (2017)
Mike Laudicina and Don DeMaria vs. DEP File No.: FLA671932-003-DW1P, etc. Florida Depart.of Environmental Protection, and Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority; Monroe County FL. (2015)
Sierra Club, Inc., and St. Johns RiverKeeper, Inc. with Florida Defenders of the Environment, Inc., vs. Sleepy Creek Lands, LLC and St. Johns River Water Management District, Case No. 14- 2608; and Karen Alhers and Jeri Baldwin with Florida Defenders of the Environment, Inc. vs.

Sleepy Creek Lands, LLC and St. Johns River Water Management District, Case No. 14-2609; Palatka FL. (2014)
Joseph Glisson vs. City of Tallahassee and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection:

DOAA Case No.: 11 2953. (2011)
Sand Hills Lake Rural Community Special Treatment Zone Administrative Hearing (telephone). (2011)
Brown vs. Dept. of Community Affairs and Bay County Florida: Case No.: 10-0858GM. (2010) Wakulla Springs Water Bottling; Wakulla County Commission Meeting, Crawfordville FL. (2006)
Quail Ridge Farm Nutrient Management Plan; PA Environmental Hearing Board, Harrisburg PA. (2003)
S&W

1005
16 Ben Lewis Farms; Thompson Township Supervisors – Development Hearing, Thompson Township, PA. (2002)
Gel-Bare Farms; North Heidelberg Township Development Hearing, North Heidelberg Township, PA. (2002)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
International Association of Hydrogeologists
National Ground Water Association
Florida Springs Institute
Hydrogeology Consortium

YEAR JOINED FIRM
December 21, 2020

YEARS WITH OTHER FIRMS
28 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
GeoHydros, Reno, NV, President, Principal Hydrogeologist, Principal Modeler (2010-2020) H2H Associates, Reno, NV, Principal Hydrogeologist, Principal Modeler (2007-2010) Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc., Reno, NV, Vice President, Principal Hydrogeologist (2002-2007) Hazlett-Kincaid, Inc., Akron, PA, Vice President, Principal Hydrogeologist (1999-2002) Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, Las Vegas, NV, Geologic Modeler (1998) University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, Graduate Research Assistant (1994-1999) GeoSolutions, Inc., Gainesville, FL, Hydrogeologist I (1992-1994) University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, Graduate Teaching Assistant (1991-1993)

CLIENT REFERENCES
Rodney DeHan, Ph.D.

Florida Geological Survey - Retired
[email protected]
Derek Sloop
Southern Nevada Water Authority
[email protected]
(702) 862-3799
Vince Grassi
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
[email protected]
(215) 656-6449
Jon Radtke
S&W

1006
17 Coca-Cola North America
[email protected]
(404) 676-9112
Nabil Dbaibo
Puget Sound Energy
[email protected]
Nilson Guiguer, Ph.D.

Water Services and Technologies, Inc.
[email protected]
Edmar Eufrásio de Araújo
Nexa Resources, Inc.
[email protected]
S&W

1007

1 Sarah C. Corbin, PWS, MSES _ASSOCIATE
Senior Biologist

EDUCATION
Bachelors of Arts, Biology and Environmental Studies, Whitman College, 2003 Masters of Environmental Science, Applied Ecology, Emphasis in Aquatic Ecology, Indiana University, 2008

REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS
Certified Professional Wetland Scientist, No. 2375, 2013 Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL), 70002, Expires 1/12/2025 WSDOT Certified Senior Biological Assessment Writer

ADDITIONAL TRAINING
Using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System in Western Washington How to Determine the Ordinary High Water Mark, WA Department of Ecology Oregon Streamflow Assessment Duration Method, US Army Corps of Engineers Designing Compensatory Mitigation and Restoration Projects, WA Department of Ecology Eelgrass Delineation Training, US Army Corps of Engineers Completing habitat assessments for compliance with the 2008 NMFS Biological Opinion, FEMA

PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
Sarah Corbin is a senior biologist and permit specialist with 14 years’ experience providing wetland and stream delineations, aquatic functional assessments, environmental permitting, biological analyses, habitat assessments, and permit compliance for complex projects. She is a Professional Wetland Scientist with experience delineating and implementing the following regional supplements to the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Arid West Region, the Great Plains Region, and the Alaska Region. Sarah coordinates and provides local, state, and federal environmental permitting for hydropower facilities, restoration, linear transportation, utility, and railway projects; and performs additional technical field activities including Ordinary High Water Mark and High Tide Line determinations, rapid assessment stream surveys, bird nesting surveys, fish exclusion, and erosion control and water quality monitoring. She is experienced in writing biological assessments for Endangered Species Act compliance, providing NEPA documentation, writing wetland and stream delineation reports, identifying aquatic minimization and avoidance measures during project design and construction, and designing planting and mitigation plans.

RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
WSDOT, I-5 Joint Base Lewis McChord Congestion Relief Project, Pierce County, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist and assistant project manager. WSDOT is proposing improvements along I-5 in the vicinity of JBLM to reduce traffic congestion and improve person and freight mobility.

Sarah was instrumental in developing the Environmental Scan for the first phase of the project and authored the wetland, fish, and wildlife sections of the report. Sarah performed wetland and OHWM stream delineations for the project’s 14 wetlands and 3 streams and received WSDOT concurrence on all delineations. She documented existing habitat conditions for federally and state-listed species and worked with the design team to minimize project impacts. She authored the project’s Wetland and Stream Delineation Report and developed the project’s Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan. Sarah wrote the wetland section of the project’s NEPA Environmental S&W

25 1008

2 Assessment. In assessing the project’s impacts to stream and wetland resources, Sarah coordinated extensively with planners and specialists at JBLM, Camp Murray, Pierce County, and the Cities of DuPont and Lakewood.

Puget Sound Energy, Lower Baker Dam Seepage Reduction, Concrete, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist and Permitting Specialist. Sarah is the natural resource task lead for this project to reduce seepage below the 285-foot-high, concrete gravity-arch dam. Sarah coordinated the project fieldwork and prepared the project permit applications and supporting documents. Sarah delineated and rated over 20 slope, depressional, riverine, and lacustrine wetlands on the site, received Corps-concurrence on all delineations, authored the project Critical Areas Report/Delineation Report, and developed the project’s mitigation strategy to use an out-ofservice-area mitigation bank when other options were deemed unviable. She worked closely with PSE environmental staff to develop required permit documents including the JARPA and JARPA drawings, SEPA Checklist, Biological Assessment, Restoration Plan, and Bank Use Plan. Sarah supported PSE environmental staff at environmental regulatory agency meetings and helped to track and organize the project’s local, state, and federal permits. She assisted PSE in revising the Biological Assessment and coordinating with the US Fish and Wildlife Service when the gray wolf was re-listed after the start of construction. Sarah continues to support PSE with environmental permit compliance and contractor submittal review during project construction.

City of Marysville, 71st Avenue NE, Soper Hill Road, and Sunnyside Boulevard Intersection Improvement Project, Marysville, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist. To support the project alternatives analysis, Sarah performed a wetland and stream reconnaissance in the vicinity of the proposed intersection improvements and identified seven potential wetlands. Sarah authored the reconnaissance report and detailed applicable regulatory requirements associated with the wetlands and proposed development.

City of Mukilteo, Harbour Reach Drive Extension Project, Mukilteo, WA. Wetland Biologist.

The project constructed a new urban arterial connecting Beverly Park Road and Harbour Pointe Boulevard SW. Sarah delineated and documented the existing conditions of three streams and five wetlands. Construction was completed in July 2021. Sarah assisted in developing the mitigation strategy, including siting the on-site wetland and buffer restoration and enhancement and assisted in the mitigation as-built documentation.

City of Kent Public Works Department, Mill Creek Reestablishment Project, Kent, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist Review. In the City of Kent, Mill Creek flows through a highly urbanized landscape. The project proposes to remove accumulated sediments in 3.7 river miles of the stream to increase flood storage capacity. Sarah provided a field review of the wetland and ordinary high water mark delineation performed for the project, including over 60 riverine wetlands. She verified the delineated boundaries, dug additional wetland an upland soil pits to support the delineation and reviewed the Cowardin Class designation in each wetland.

City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services, Edmonds Marsh Buffer Restoration Project, Edmonds, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist. The City proposed to restore portions of the Edmonds Marsh buffer. Sarah delineated portions of Edmonds Marsh adjacent to the proposed buffer improvements and developed the Edmonds Marsh Buffer Restoration Plan, incorporating feedback from City’s Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, City maintenance staff, and local environmental groups. The plan included removal of invasive species and planting plans for select areas with varying exposure, hydrology, topography, and proximity to public roadways and public use areas.

S&W

1009

3 City of Mill Creek, 35th Avenue Southeast Reconstruction Project, Mill Creek, WA. Wetland Biologist. The road improvement project addressed road flooding issues and included stormwater improvements resulting in minor wetland impacts. Sarah completed the wetland and stream delineation to identify critical areas and support the project’s permitting process. Sarah assisted with preparation of environmental applications and documentation to local, state, and federal agencies. When the agencies questioned the site wetland character, Sarah performed pH monitoring and functional assessment to support the wetland’s bog designation. Sarah also provided guidance and oversight to the biologist performing environmental compliance during construction.

BNSF Railway Company, Box Elder Creek Emergency Stream Crossing, Laurel Subdivision MP 208.5, Cascade County, MT. Lead Wetland Biologist and Permit Specialist. In response to an active landslide affecting the railroad tracks, BNSF installed an emergency access road and stream crossing in order to access and stabilize the slide area. Sarah assisted BNSF in determining which regulations applied to the work, performed a wetland and stream delineation, produced a Corps-approved delineation report, and coordinated the post-project environmental permitting and restoration efforts. After the temporary stream crossing had been removed, Sarah assisted BNSF with permitting a permanent stream crossing in the same location.

Puget Sound Energy, Site Development Feasibility Studies, Centralia and Redmond, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist. Sarah visited potential Puget Sound Energy-owned parcels in Centralia and Redmond to identify critical areas as part of comprehensive site development feasibility studies Shannon & Wilson completed for each PSE site. The review included wetland and stream reconnaissance, identification of floodplains, and potential habitat for federal and state protected species. Sarah co-authored Critical Areas Reports for each site.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Skagit Wildlife Area Delineation, Skagit County, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist. To support WDFW plans to improve an office trailer at the Skagit Wildlife Area Headquarters, Sarah delineated two wetlands in the vicinity of Wiley Slough, in historic floodplain on the landward side of the Wiley Slough Dike. She characterized and rated the wetlands and authored the delineation to support the environmental permit process.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wells Recreation Boat Launch Project, Douglas County, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist. To support WDFW plans to improve the Wells Recreation Area boat launch, Sarah delineated one wetland along the Columbia River (Lake Pateros). She characterized and rated the wetland and authored the delineation report necessary to complete the project’s environmental permit process.

BNSF Railway Company, Culvert Replacement Project, Big Horn Subdivision MP 609.1, Gillette, WY. Wetland Biologist and Permit Specialist. BNSF proposed to replace a culvert beneath the access road adjacent to the BNSF railroad tracks. Sarah delineated the wetland and stream associated with the culvert and produced a delineation report to support the permitting for the project.

Port of Everett, Bay Wood Interim Action Cleanup and Shoreline Restoration Project, Everett, WA. Wetland Biologist. The project combined environmental cleanup, wetland habitat restoration, and buffer enhancements along a shoreline adjacent to an upland site redevelopment.

Sarah documented the project’s as-built condition and co-authored the as-built restoration monitoring report. She also assisted the Port of Everett with a site visit with the Department of S&W

1010

4 Ecology and the Tulalip Tribe and developed a replanting plan for areas disturbed during the upland development construction. Sarah will continue to support the Port in site restoration monitoring.

City of Bellevue, 120th Avenue NE Corridor Project, Bellevue, WA. Wetland Biologist. This road improvement project includes road realignment and widening, stormwater management improvements, and replacing an existing culvert crossing with a new fish-passable culvert. Sarah delineated and characterized three onsite wetlands and one stream and authored the project Critical Areas Report/Delineation Report.

City of Bothell, Horse Creek Improvement and Relocation Project, Bothell, WA. Supporting Biologist. The Horse Creek Improvements Project restored a stream that flowed in an underground pipe through downtown Bothell, Washington. The project realigned the stream into approximately 2,000 linear feet of new aboveground stream channel. To support the local permitting process Sarah wrote an ecological justification for the stream restoration design, which contrasted the pre-project stream water quality, hydrologic, and habitat function with those of the restored condition.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wiley Slough Tidegate Replacement, Skagit County, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist. The Wiley Slough tidegate is located on the WDFW – Skagit Wildlife Preserve on Fir Island, near Conway, WA. The replacement designs included two 10-foot-wide by 8-foot-high tidegates attached to a concrete box culvert. Sarah completed the estuarine, palustrine, and riverine wetland and ordinary high water mark delineations on the project site and wrote the project delineation report. The delineations were approved without comment by the regulatory agencies.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wiley Dike Repair Project, Skagit County, WA.

Lead Wetland Biologist and Permit specialist. The Project will repair 5,800 feet of the existing Wiley Slough Dike to prevent dike overtopping and meet dike stability requirements. The project includes replacing the Wiley Slough tidegate, raising the dike, incorporating riprap within and along the waterward face of the dike, and re-establishing estuarine wetland in an area of dike retraction. Sarah delineated the estuarine, freshwater tidal, riverine, and palustrine wetlands on the project site and authored the project’s Delineation Report, Bank Use Plan, and Restoration Plan. To facilitate permitting of the project explorations, Sarah worked with the design team to avoid impacts to wetlands, completed the shoreline exemption application, and wrote the No Effect letter to document Endangered Species Act compliance. Sarah continues to support WDFW through the main project’s permit process.

Skagit County Public Works, Freestad Lake Barrier Lagoon Restoration, Samish Island, WA.

Lead Wetland Biologist and Permit Specialist. The project proposed to restore tidal inundation and estuary habitat to a 20-acre farm field. Sarah delineated and characterized the existing onsite palustrine and estuarine wetland systems and assisted the County in developing a permitting approach for the project.

Reserve Silica Corporation, Reserve Silica Cement Kiln Dust Landfill, Ravensdale, WA.

Lead Wetland Biologist. Shannon & Wilson assisted Reserve Silica to better understand the extent and impacts of cement kiln dust present on the property. Sarah completed a wetland delineation in an area downgradient of the cement kiln dust burial. During the delineation she took pH measurements in surface water and exposed ground water. Sarah documented the findings and summarized applicable natural resource related local, state, and federal permits to S&W

1011

5 assist Reserve Silica in understanding requirements associated with remediating a high pH pond within the delineated wetland complex.

Puget Sound Energy, Upper Baker Dam Spillway Stability Improvements and Tailrace Channel Rock Debris Removal Project, Whatcom County, WA Lead Wetland Biologist and Permitting Specialist. Sarah is the natural resource and permit task lead for this project to improve spillway slope stability and remove accumulated rockfall debris in the tailrace channel downstream of the dam. Sarah is supporting PSE environmental staff by preparing local, state, and federal permit applications and attending environmental regulatory agency meetings with PSE to help track and coordinate permit process, permit requirements, and answer agency questions. Sarah wrote the project Critical Areas Report/Delineation Report, the JARPA, SEPA Checklist, and Restoration Plan, contributed to the Biological Assessment, and coordinated production of the JARPA drawings. She assisted PSE in revising the Biological Assessment and coordinating with the US Fish and Wildlife Service when the gray wolf was relisted during the consultation process. Sarah continues to assist PSE through the environmental permit process.

City of Everett, Transmission Line 5 Replacement Crossing Pilchuck River Design-Build Project, Snohomish, WA. Lead Wetland Biologist, Environmental Compliance, and Permit Specialist. Project replaced City of Everett Transmission Line 5, a 51-inch steel pipe carrying potable water from Lake Chaplain reservoir to the City of Everett, where it crosses the Pilchuck River. Sarah performed the wetland and ordinary high water mark delineations and produced the delineation report and supporting permit documents, including the Joint Aquatic Resource Application and the restoration planting plan to facilitate the project’s environmental permit process. Sarah also coordinated with the Army Corps and the Snoqualmie Tribe to resolve permitting issues and expedite the permit process. During in-water work construction, Sarah performed spot-check environmental compliance in accordance with project permit conditions and provided onsite guidance to the contractor and their subcontractors. Sarah designed the project planting plans and provided guidance during the restoration phase. Sarah also produced the monitoring reports required by USFWS and NMFS to successfully close out the environmental permits following construction.

WSDOT, SR 532 Corridor Improvements: Camano Island to Interstate 5, WA. Assistant Environmental Compliance Manager. As assistant Environmental Compliance Manager for the SR532 design build project, Sarah performed wetland delineations and stream ordinary high water mark determinations and provided on-site design change guidance to avoid and minimize sensitive area impacts. Sarah is the primary author of the SR532 Environmental Compliance Plan, as well as the Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification. She managed the SR532 environmental commitments database for the project and reviewed construction daily to ensure compliance with environmental permit commitments and regulations. Sarah performed fish exclusion in fresh water and tidally influenced work areas, allowing construction to continue without significant delay. As the Lead CESCL Field Review for the project, Sarah performed weekly site inspections of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and monitored all construction stormwater discharge points throughout the 10 mile project corridor. She also performed water quality monitoring for in-water and over-water work to meet CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification conditions, and performed TESC design review and aided in the environmental compliance training of construction personnel. Following construction, Sarah oversaw the planting of wetland mitigation areas, performed mitigation monitoring, and obtained permit closure from the Corps after one year of monitoring, in areas where the contractor was responsible for mitigation.

S&W

1012

6 Southwest Suburban Sewer District, Lift Stations No. 14 and 15 Design Retrofit, Burien, WA.

Lead Wetland Biologist and Permit Specialist. The SWSSD proposed to retrofit and upgrade an existing below grade sewer line located within the intertidal zone of public and private beaches along Puget Sound. Sarah performed a wetland reconnaissance and forage fish assessment for the project, prepared a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application and coordinated with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to obtain a Hydraulic Project Approval to cover the project in-water work. Sarah also provided technical review of the SEPA Checklist prepared by the sewer district prior to submittal to the City.

City of Edmonds, Harbor Square Outfall Stormwater Improvements, Willow Creek Daylighting Project, Edmonds, WA. Wetland Biologist and Permit Specialist. As part of the Willow Creek Daylighting project, the City is assessing potential improvements to existing outfalls within Edmonds Marsh. Sarah delineated the wetland and ordinary high water mark of Edmonds Marsh and Stella’s Marsh and authored the project’s delineation report, providing an assessment of functional characterizations of the wetlands and outlining the applicable local, state, and federal permits for the project. Sarah also completed water quality monitoring and macroinvertebrate sampling and contributed to the project’s quarterly monitoring reports.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fir Island Farm Restoration Feasibility Study, Skagit County, WA. Wetland Biologist. The project evaluated multiple alternatives to restore tidal marsh and coastal shoreline habitat on a 200-acre site. Sarah performed surface water elevation monitoring and data synthesis to help describe existing hydrologic conditions on the site. Sarah also helped obtain local, state, and federal permitting for the project and reviewed the marsh restoration planting and seeding plan.

Skagit County Public Works, North Fork Skagit Levee Setback Feasibility Study, Skagit County, WA. Lead Wetland biologist. The project studied the feasibility of a levee setback project to restore salmon habitat on the Skagit River. Sarah performed a wetland reconnaissance and authored a wetland characterization report to establish baseline wetland and vegetation conditions on the site. Sarah evaluated the biological merit of several tidal channel design alternatives for the Conceptual Design Alternatives report and designed a proposed planting and seeding mix for the marsh restoration habitats.

U.S. Coast Guard, Storis Water Line Replacement, Kodiak, AK. Lead Biologist. The USCG proposes to upgrade existing water line and stormwater infrastructure on the USCG Base Kodiak.

The project includes constructing new stormwater outfalls in Womens Bay. Sarah wrote the Biological Assessment to evaluate the project’s impact to fish and wildlife species or critical habitat listed under the federal Endangered Species Act and essential fish habitat protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

U.S. Department of the Navy, Navy Culvert Tunnel Construction Monitoring Project, Bremerton, WA. Biologist, Environmental Compliance and Permit Specialist. Sarah coordinated the environmental tasks for the construction of a fish passage barrier correction along Union River through an active Navy railroad embankment. To restore fish passage upstream in Union River, Shannon & Wilson assisted Navy Facilitates Engineering Systems Command with the construction of a new tunnel, measuring 20-feet wide and 280-feet long and within a 70-foot-tall Navy railroad embankment which connects Naval Base Kitsap Bremerton and NAVBASE Kitsap Bangor. Sarah performed a bird nest survey for compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, managed fish removal and exclusion downstream of the project site and performed routine monitoring of the block nets to ensure proper function throughout the project. Sarah authored the project’s Environmental Protection Plan, prepared the Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan, S&W

1013

7 applied for the construction stormwater NPDES permit, and served as one of the project’s Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Leads (CESCL), conducting TESC site inspections and reporting for compliance throughout construction and site restoration.

BNSF Railway Company, Norfolk Embankment Repair Project, Larimer County, Colorado.

Wetland biologist, environmental compliance and permit specialist. The project involved bank stabilization along 0.4 miles of BNSF Railway embankment in Larimer County, Colorado. Sarah performed a site wetland delineation, wrote the project’s Stormwater Management Plan to meet Colorado State guidelines and designed a native erosion control seed mix for use during the restoration phase based on the area’s climate, topography, and elevation.

International and C Street LLC, International Airport Road and C Street, Anchorage, AK.

Wetland Biologist. The project involved constructing the Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center and associated office buildings, and the Hyatt House hotel and associated parking on a series of parcels located in Anchorage, Alaska. Shannon & Wilson obtained a US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Individual Permit to fill wetlands at the development site and designed and implemented a mitigation plan for the project. Sarah performed vegetation and wetland inundation mitigation monitoring for the project, confirmed and mapped wetland boundaries, and coordinated with the Corps to assess whether the mitigation plan’s performance standards had been met.

Whatcom County, Deming Levee Upstream Improvements, Deming, WA. Wetland Biologist.

The Deming Levee project was an engineering and environmental design and permitting project that extended the Deming Levee 1,000 ft to tie into and prevent overtopping of a substandard structure. Sarah delineated the existing wetlands in the project area, wrote the project delineation report, contributed to the conceptual mitigation plan, and monitored the surface and groundwater dataloggers for the project.

BNSF Railway Company, Kelso to Martin Bluff, Task 6, Kelso, WA. Wetland Biologist. The project included constructing an additional rail, as well as new bridge across the Coweeman River. Sarah delineated ten wetlands and the ordinary high water mark along the Coweeman River and Owl Creek and provided functional assessments to document existing conditions in the project area. Sarah authored the wetland discipline report as part of the project’s Environmental Assessment.

City of Redmond, West Lake Sammamish Sewer Manhole #2, Redmond, WA.

Wetland Biologist, and Permit Specialist. The project constructed a manhole in an existing sewer line along the shoreline of Lake Sammamish to facilitate City maintenance. Sarah delineated site wetlands and delineated the Lake Sammamish Ordinary High Water Mark to assist the design team in minimizing and avoiding impacts. She also authored the project’s Biological Assessment, contributed to the Wetland Delineation Report, and applied for and obtained local, state, and federal permitting, including coordination and site visits with agency representatives. Sarah also contributed to the project’s Mitigation Plan and performed the mitigation baseline monitoring.

Lake Washington School District, Juanita High School Replacement, Kirkland, WA.

Project manager, wetland biologist, and permit specialist. The school district intends to replace Juanita High School on the existing school property, which is constrained by a wetland and stream system on 3 of the 4 parcel boundaries. Sarah delineated site wetlands and the ordinary high water mark of the site stream to assist the design team in minimizing and avoiding impacts to critical areas and their buffers and authored the project Wetland and Stream Delineation Report/Critical Areas Report. During the project’s design process the City of Kirkland updated S&W

1014

8 their critical areas code in several iterations and Sarah coordinated with the City to identify the best permitting pathway for the project. Sarah designed a buffer mitigation plan to compensate for temporary buffer impacts. Sarah has also coordinated with Shannon & Wilson hydraulic engineers to provide permitting and hydraulic analyses for a pedestrian footbridge that crossed the project site’s stream. Sarah will continue to assist the project following construction completion through mitigation construction oversight and mitigation monitoring.

Lake Washington School District, Peter Kirk Elementary School Replacement, Kirkland, WA.

Project manager, wetland biologist, and permit specialist. The school district is to replacing Peter Kirk Elementary School on the existing school property. Sarah delineated site wetlands and the ordinary high water mark of the site stream to assist the design team in minimizing and avoiding impacts to critical areas and their buffers. During the project’s design process, the City of Kirkland updated their critical areas code in several iterations and Sarah coordinated with the City to identify the best permitting pathway for the project. She authored the project’s Wetland and Stream Delineation Report/Critical Areas Report and designed and wrote the Buffer Averaging and Enhancement Mitigation Plan. Sarah successfully advocated for the School District when the City of Kirkland attempted to impose critical areas code requirements that were not applicable to the project. Sarah helped the project avoid the unnecessary code constraints by developing a casespecific ecological assessment, detailed code analysis and hydraulic analysis; by assisting the School District at City meetings; and by successfully presenting the School District’s case at the project’s public hearing. Sarah provided buffer mitigation construction compliance and is performing the City-required buffer mitigation monitoring and reporting.

City of Edmonds School District, New Madrona K-8 School Replacement Project, Edmonds, WA. Wetland Biologist and Permitting Specialist. The Edmonds School District replaced the Madrona K-8 School on the school property. Sarah performed wetland delineations to identify critical area constraints on the school property and prepared technical documentation to support design selection and permit applications. She also provided local critical areas code interpretation to minimize impacts to critical areas and reduce the permitting effort. Sarah designed and wrote a buffer averaging and enhancement plan to facilitate approval of local permits. Sarah also successfully presented the mitigation strategy and code compliance summary on behalf of the School District at the project’s public hearing examination. Sarah will continue to provide mitigation monitoring to complete the City’s critical area code requirements.

City of Sammamish, Issaquah-Fall City Road Improvements, Sammamish, WA. Wetland biologist. The project improved SE Issaquah-Fall City Road between 242nd Avenue SE to just beyond the intersection with Klahanie Drive SE. Sarah delineated and documented the existing conditions of North Fork Issaquah Creek and three wetlands, characterized, and rated the onsite wetlands and contributed to the delineation report. Sarah also assisted in the onsite mitigation asbuilt monitoring documentation.

City of Mill Creek, Delineation Services for Cook, Dobson, and Remillard Properties, Mill Creek, WA. Wetland Biologist. Performed wetland delineations and delineation reports to support the City’s planning and development decisions for three City properties. Reduced the City’s site restrictions by identifying and correcting delineation inconsistencies performed previously by other consultants on the sites.

City of Snohomish, Stocker Property, Snohomish, WA. Wetland Biologist. The City of Snohomish purchased 20 acres of farmland along the Snohomish River in order to build a public boat launch and associated parking area. Sarah performed a wetland delineation on the 20-acre property, delineated the Ordinary High Water Mark on the Snohomish River to help the City better understand site constraints. Sarah also assisted the City in understanding the federal, state, S&W

1015

9 and local permitting implications for the project, which was located within both City of Snohomish and Snohomish County jurisdictions.

Clallam County, Dungeness River Levee Setback and Floodplain Restoration, Clallam County, WA. Wetland Biologist and Permit Support. Clallam County is proposing a 2,500-foot-long, river levee setback, roadway relocation, and 120-acre river floodplain restoration project along the Dungeness River. Shannon & Wilson is performing fluvial geomorphology analysis, multidimensional (2D) hydraulic modeling, erosion and scour protection design, groundwater studies, sea level rise and climate change analysis, drainage studies, geotechnical stability analyses, seismic analyses, wetland and stream delineations, wetland functional assessments, and environmental permitting coordination. Sarah delineated nine wetlands and the ordinary high water mark of site streams within the 125-acre site, rated the wetland function using the 2014 Ecology wetland rating system, and analyzed project impacts and mitigation credits made available from the floodplain restoration.

City of Kent, Green River Levee Improvements, Kent, WA. Wetland Biologist. Sarah performed wetland reconnaissance of nine project sites, which included proposed sheet pile walls, proposed road realignment and proposed earthen berms. Sarah assisted in wetland delineations of wetlands that would be impacted by the proposed projects and categorized the wetlands using the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. She also authored a wetland delineation report and biological assessment for the proposed projects and authored a biological assessment addendum when the project design changed.

Raft Island Improvement Association, Raft Island Community Bridge Replacement Project, Pierce County, WA. Lead Biologist and Permit Specialist. Sarah facilitated the permitting for the Raft Island Geotechnical Explorations, which included seven over-water borings. The project received funding from the US Department of Agriculture, necessitating coordination between federal and local agencies. Sarah prepared an addendum to the Raft Island Biological Evaluation, the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application, wrote a Shoreline Exemption letter and coordinated with Pierce County to obtain permitting for the project.

King County Library System, Algona Pacific Library Expansion, Algona Pacific, WA. Wetland Biologist. Sarah performed a wetland reconnaissance and wetland delineation for the project, rated observed wetlands using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System in Western Washington, and prepared a wetland delineation report.

Port of Seattle, Consolidated Rental Car Facility, SeaTac, WA. Biologist. Sarah conducted a subgrade and soil conditions evaluation for the landscaped areas associated with the Consolidated Rental Car Facility in SeaTac, WA. She used detailed field documentation and soil fertility analytical tests to compile a soil evaluation report used by Port of Seattle and Turner Construction in a case against a sub-contractor.

Kitsap County, Central Kitsap Collection & Conveyance System Upgrades Project, Kitsap County, WA. Wetland Biologist. Kitsap County Public Works plans to upgrade three lift stations.

As a biologist, Sarah performed a wetland and stream reconnaissance at the lift station locations and along two proposed force main replacement alignments. Sarah rated the observed wetlands using the Revised Washington State Wetland Rating System in Western Washington, and produced a wetland and stream reconnaissance report.

City of Gig Harbor, Cushman Trail Project Phases 3 and 4, Gig Harbor, WA. Wetland Biologist. The City of Gig Harbor plans to build a non-motorized trail through areas with existing wetlands and streams. Sarah performed a wetland and stream delineation, rated observed wetlands, produced a wetland and stream delineation report, and completed a WSDOT S&W

1016

10 Environmental Classification Summary (ECS) checklist and Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application to assist in project design and permitting.

WSDOT, SR 520 Bridge Replacements and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, I-5 to Medina, Seattle, WA. Biologist. Sarah provided drilling observation erosion control monitoring for over-water and land borings in the I-5 to Medina portion of the SR520 Bridge Replacement Program. As a Shannon & Wilson (SW) field representative, Sarah visually classified soil samples, compiled a field log of each boring, and returned the samples to the SW laboratory for further analysis and testing. She provided TESC Quality Control through her drilling observations and documented those BMPs implemented by WSDOT personnel. Sarah also performed field reconnaissance for boring locations, assessing factors such as impact to critical areas, and BMPs and site restoration requirements.

BNSF Railway Company, BNSF Seattle to Everett Slope Stability Study, Seattle, WA. Project research and data synthesis. The study identified areas of high landslide hazard, prioritized the areas based on landslide hazard, and provided conceptual-level landslide mitigation measures and conceptual-level order-of-magnitude costs to improve slope stability and reduce the landslide hazard to railroad operations. The study included approximately 900 landslide events recorded between 1914 and 2011. Sarah compiled, organized, evaluated, and presented geologic and landslide hazard information for the report.

U.S. Department of the Navy, P-834 Pier Extension Geotechnical Explorations at Naval Base Kitsap (NBK) – Bangor, Kitsap County, WA. Biologist. The project included in-water geotechnical borings in Hood Canal, as well as upland borings and test pits along the Bangor shoreline. Sarah assessed the potential of the project to affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Sarah also wrote the No Effect letter for geotechnical explorations on the NBK Bangor naval base, which documented that the project will have no effect on listed species. Sarah also completed the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application for the project.

Youngsman Property, Twin Bridge Marine Park Biological Evaluation Addendum, Swinomish Channel, Skagit County, WA. Biologist. The Twin Bridges Marina was originally permitted in 2002 to install in-water piling, and over-water access ramps and floats for 16 boat houses. In 2012, Twin Bridge Marina proposed to modify 13 existing boat slips by moving and re-driving in-water piling. Sarah assessed the potential of the revised project to affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act and authored an addendum to the Twin Bridge Biological Evaluation documenting that the project would not likely adversely affect listed species.

The Nature Conservancy, Fisher Slough Levee Setback Project, Skagit County, WA. Biologist.

The project involved the construction of approximately 3,300 feet of new levee, demolition of existing levee, and habitat restoration of 120 acres of marsh habitat. Sarah completed the Notice of Intent and implemented the NPDES permit during the last phase of the project, which involved bank stabilization in a flood damaged stream channel. Sarah also performed fish exclusion in the stream prior to the bank stabilization work.

Port of Friday Harbor, Bulkhead Replacement Project, Friday Harbor, WA. Biologist. Project replaced an aging rockery bulkhead with a 175-foot long geogrid and concrete wall bulkhead in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island, WA. The project also included the removal of approximately 17, 12-inch derelict timber creosote-treated piles. Sarah performed a qualitative beach survey to assess riparian vegetation and habitat features, aquatic substrate and macroalgae. Sarah also contributed to the project Biological Evaluation assessing potential impacts to listed species under the federal Endangered Species Act and essential fish habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which resulted in a May Affect, not Likely to Adversely Affect effects determination for the project.

S&W

1017

11 Kitsap County, Central Kitsap Pump Stations 1, 6, 8, 18, and 38 Conveyance System Upgrades, Kitsap County, WA. Wetland Biologist and Permit Secialist. Kitsap County Public Works proposes to upgrade five pump stations and associated gravity sewers in Central Kitsap. Sarah delineated wetlands and streams along the project alignment and produced the wetland and stream delineation report needed to permit the project. Sarah also prepared the SEPA Checklist for the project on behalf of the County.

BNSF Railway Company, Lake Oahe MP 811.0 Landslide Repair, Mobridge, Corson County, SD. Wetland Biologist and Permit Specialist. Sarah assisted BNSF in permitting slope stabilization and repair measures near Lake Oahe, where an active, deep-seated landslide threatened the safety of train passage on the tracks above the landslide. Sarah successfully proposed and received Corps concurrence that onsite wetlands were hydrologically isolated from the lake and were therefore not regulated under the Clean Water Act, reducing project permitting effort and costs.

Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians, Harvey Creek Fish Ladder Replacement Project, Arlington, WA. Biologist and permit specialist. Project upgraded the Stillaguamish Tribe’s HarveyArmstrong Creek Hatchery, including replacing the fishway, fish ladder, and water intake to meet current fish passage criteria. Sarah wrote the project JARPA, completed the SEPA Checklist, and produced the project Biological Evaluation, documenting that the project was not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Integrated Vegetation Management Plan, Alaska. Biologist. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT & PF) oversees 255 airports, 11 ferries, 5,619 miles of highway and 720 public facilities throughout the state of Alaska. Shannon & Wilson prepared an integrated vegetation management plan to assist ADOT & PF in using herbicide and non-chemical vegetation maintenance and control measures to improve public safety. Sarah conducted interviews with over a dozen ADOT & PF maintenance superintendents and completed site assessments of highway vegetative management throughout Alaska’s ecoregions to evaluate maintenance challenges and prioritize effective management strategies. Sarah also completed factsheets on common herbicides to assist ADOT & PF maintenance operators and the public in understanding the potential risks associated with herbicide as described in the vegetation management plan.

Genesee & Wyoming, Inc., Seeding Specification for Milepost 522.3, Roseburg, OR. Lead Biologist. Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. planned slope stabilization efforts on the slopes above Milepost 522.3, where recent fires and surficial erosion resulted in vegetation loss on the slopes.

To assist Genessee & Wyoming’s slope stabilization efforts in the area, Sarah designing a seed mix of native, erosion control species appropriate for the area’s climate and elevation and wrote the seeding specifications for the projects RFP.

Miller Hayashi Architects, Miller Hiyashi Wetland Reconnaissance, Seattle, WA.

Wetland Biologist. Sarah performed a wetland reconnaissance evaluate existing conditions on a parcel within the City of Seattle. The reconnaissance and Sarah’s coordination with the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections was used to assist the client in the decision to purchase the subject parcel.

Lake Washington School District, Clara Barton (New North Redmond) Elementary School, Redmond, WA. Wetland Biologist, and Permit Specialist. The school district intends to build a new elementary school on a vacant parcel located in Redmond. Sarah performed a wetland and stream reconnaissance of the parcel, determined that none existed within the parcel, and provided S&W

1018

12 a letter report to the District documenting the findings. Sarah also assisted the School District during the SEPA comment review process.

Snohomish County, North Meander Stillaguamish River, Snohomish County, WA. Wetland Biologist. Performed wetland delineation and Ordinary High Water Mark delineation on a backwater area associated with the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River to support future geotechnical explorations and project design.

City of Renton, Ron Regis Park Restroom/Storage Facility, Renton, WA. Wetland Biologist and Permitting Specialist. The City of Renton is planning to construct a restroom and storage facility on Ron Regis Park. The park property is flanked by the Cedar River, Madsen Creek, and several associated wetlands, and lies within the 100-year floodplain of the Cedar River. Sarah delineated wetlands and streams on the park property and prepared the wetland delineation report to assist the City in understanding the extent of onsite wetland and stream buffers and building constraints.

Sarah also wrote the Biological Assessment to assess project impacts on threatened and endangered species.

Kitsap County, Central Kitsap Treatment Plant, Kitsap County, WA. Wetland Biologist and Permitting Specialist. As a result of system improvements on the Central Kitsap Treatment Plant, the County constructed a wetland mitigation site on the treatment plant property. Sarah performed baseline and Years 1 through 5 of monitoring of the mitigation site and coordinated with the County on plant replacements, surface water monitoring, and maintenance requirements. Sarah also coordinated with the US Army Corps of Engineers in evaluating whether the project meets the mitigation success criteria. The mitigation site has successfully completed mitigation monitoring.

Kitsap County, South Central Force Main Project, Kitsap County, WA. Wetland Biologist and Permitting Specialist. The South Central Force Main project consisted of replacing approximately 6,500 feet of 30-inch-diameter techite force main from Paulson Road to the Central Kitsap Wastewater Treatment Plant (CKTP) with 34-inch high-density polyethylene pipe force main.

The project included open trenching, installing the force main, and backfilling the trench with native soil. Mitigation for this project’s impacts to wetlands and buffers generally consisted of restoring temporarily impacted areas to pre-construction conditions. Sarah performed mitigation monitoring over a period of 6 years and coordinated with the County on plant replacements and maintenance requirements. Sarah also coordinated with the US Army Corps of Engineers in evaluating whether the project meets the mitigation success criteria. The mitigation site has successfully completed mitigation monitoring.

Lake Washington School District, 2018 Bond Program School Reconnaissance, Cities of Kirkland, Redmond, and Sammamish, and Unincorporated King County, WA. Wetland Biologist, and Permitting Specialist. Sarah assisted the School District in evaluating several school locations that were previously identified for the 2018 Bond program. She provided wetland and stream reconnaissance, wildlife observations, and regulatory review at several proposed school sites to assist the School District in determining potential site constraints associated with critical areas. The schools under evaluation included Lake Washington High School, New Eastside School, Kamiakin Middle School, and Louisa May Alcott Elementary School.

University of Washington, University of Washington ICA Drainage Ditch Violation, City of Seattle, WA. Wetland biologist and Permitting Specialist. The University of Washington received a violation from the US Army Corps of Engineers and the WA State Department of Ecology for illegal placement of fill in a wetland during construction of the Husky Ballpark Stadium. Shannon S&W

1019

13 & Wilson assisted the UW in responding to the violation by assessing preconstruction condition and wetland function; coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies; and designing an agency-approved mitigation plan. Sarah performed oversight during mitigation site construction and will write the mitigation as-built or baseline monitoring report.

City of Edmonds Department of Parks, Recreation, & Cultural Services, Edmonds Marsh Critical Areas Report, City of Edmonds, WA. Wetland biologist. The City of Edmonds Department of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services is proposing to perform maintenance activities, including invasive species removal and native plantings within and in the vicinity of Edmonds Marsh. Sarah was the lead biologist in both field and aerial delineations of Edmonds Marsh, including performing a functional assessment of the marsh and identifying areas of salt and freshwater vegetation communities. Sarah wrote a Critical Areas Report to assist the City in obtaining approval to complete the proposed maintenance activities.

South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, Titlow Shoreline Restoration Project, City of Tacoma, WA. Permitting Specialist. To support the Titlow Shoreline Restoration Project, Shannon & Wilson performed geotechnical borings within existing BNSF right-of-way. The borings were located within shoreline jurisdiction and wetland buffer. Sarah obtained a City of Tacoma Shoreline Exemption to allow the borings to proceed.

City of Edmonds, Dayton Street Pump Station, City of Edmonds, WA. Permitting Specialist.

The City of Edmonds proposes to upgrade the storm sewer system by constructing a stormwater pump station that connects to existing storm sewer in order to prevent flooding in the Dayton Street area. Sarah contributed to the SEPA Checklist and Shoreline Master Program Compliance Letter to facilitate local permitting for the project.

DATE JOINED FIRM
April 2009

EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER FIRMS
Washington State Department of Ecology. As a biologist for the WA State Department of Ecology, Sarah led a stream habitat monitoring project in the Wenatchee sub-basin. She performed rapid assessment stream surveys through stream channel characterization, macroinvertebrate collection and water chemistry analysis in wadeable and non-wadeable streams. The project required coordination with federal and state agencies as well as local land owners. Sarah also assisted in electro-fishing for the National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA). Sarah implemented the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), and NOAA Fisheries’ Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP).

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS)
Women in Transportation Services (WTS)
S&W

1020

EXHIBIT C
S&W

1021
Scott Cashen, M.S.—Independent Biological Resources Consultant 1 July 19, 2022
Mr. Richard M. Franco
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Dear Mr. Franco:

This letter contains my comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared by the City of American Canyon (“City”) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (“Project”). Buzz Oates LLC (“Applicant”) is proposing to develop a 2.4-million-square-foot logistics center on approximately 163 acres of an approximately 208-acre site located in the northwestern portion of the City of American Canyon. The remaining 44.8 acres of the site would serve as mitigation for the Project’s impacts to wetlands.

I am an environmental biologist with 29 years of professional experience in wildlife biology and natural resources management. I have served as a biological resources expert for over 150 projects in California. My experience and scope of work in this regard has included assisting various clients with evaluations of biological resource issues; preparation and peer review of environmental compliance documents prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”); and preparation of written comments that address deficiencies with CEQA and NEPA documents. My work has included written and oral testimony for the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and Federal courts. My educational background includes a B.S. in Resource Management from the University of California at Berkeley, and a M.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from the Pennsylvania State University. A copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached hereto.

The comments herein are based on my review of the environmental documents prepared for the Project, a review of scientific literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur in the Project area, and the knowledge and experience I have acquired during my 29-year career in the field of natural resources management.

CASHEN

1 1022
2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
The Project site provides potential habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp, a federally threatened species. LSA conducted dry season vernal pool fairy shrimp surveys in summer of 2016, and Monk & Associates conducted wet season vernal pool fairy shrimp surveys in winter of 2016- 2017. The results of those surveys are outdated and can no longer be used to assume absence of the species at the Project site.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp disperse among individual pools through flooding, wind, birds, other vertebrates, and various human activities.1
As a result, vernal pool fairy shrimp can rapidly
colonize new pools, or recolonize pools from which they have been extirpated.2 Thousands of vernal pool fairy shrimp were detected in a vernal pool near the Napa County Airport, approximately 2,700 feet northwest of the Project site.3 Numerous studies have shown that viable cysts can survive passage through the digestive tract of waterfowl, as well as attach to feathers or feet of wading birds, thus promoting long-distance dispersal among pools.4 Because waterfowl and shorebirds commonly travel among ephemeral wetlands (e.g., vernal pools) to satisfy their energy requirements,5 it is reasonably possible that birds transported vernal pool fairy shrimp from the occupied pool near the airport to the Project site within the five years that have elapsed since the surveys were conducted. As a result, negative results from surveys conducted five years ago do not justify the DEIR’s determination that the Project would have no impact on the vernal pool fairy shrimp.

Special-Status Birds
The DEIR acknowledges that bird species designated as Bird Species of Conservation Concern by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) are considered special-status species

1 Incagnone G, F Marrone, R Barone, L Robba, L Naselli-Flores. 2015. How do freshwater organisms cross the “dry ocean”? A review on passive dispersal and colonization processes with a special focus on temporary ponds.

Hydrobiologia 750:103-123. See also Maquire B Jr. 1963. The Passive Dispersal of Small Aquatic Organisms and Their Colonization of Isolated Bodies of Water. Ecological Monographs 33(2):161-185. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), 5-year review: summary and evaluation.

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA, p. 5. 2 Ibid.
3 California Natural Diversity Database. 2022. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [Jul 3, 2022].
4 Figuerola J, A Green. 2002. Dispersal of aquatic organisms by waterbirds: a review of past research and priorities for future studies. Freshwater Biology 47:483–494. See also Figuerola J, A Green, T Michot. 2005. Invertebrate eggs can fly: evidence of waterfowl mediated gene-flow in aquatic invertebrates. American Naturalist 165:274–280.

See also Proctor VW, CR Malone, VL DeVlaming. 1967. Dispersal of aquatic organisms: viability of disseminules recovered from captive killdeer. Ecology 48:672-676.
5 Silveira JG. 1998. Avian Uses of Vernal Pools and Implications for Conservation Practice. In: Witham CW, Bauder ET, Belk D, Ferren WR Jr, Ornduff R (editors). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. p. 92-106.

CASHEN

2 3
1023
3 that “must be evaluated in the context of evaluation under CEQA.”6 However, the DEIR fails to
disclose or analyze impacts to the following Bird Species of Conservation Concern that were detected at the Project site:7
California gull, savannah sparrow, and marbled godwit.8 Although the DEIR does not quantify the number of California gulls and savannah sparrows detected at the Project site, it states that “large flocks” of marbled godwits were observed probing the ground and cow patties.9
In addition, the DEIR fails to disclose and analyze potentially significant impacts to the cackling goose, which is considered a special-status species on its wintering grounds in California.10 Large flocks of cackling geese have been detected at the Napa Logistics Park11 (which is located immediately north of the proposed Project site), and they likely occur at the Project site.12 Grasslands associated with vernal pool landscapes in California provide critical foraging habitat for cackling geese.13
Short-eared Owl
The DEIR states that short-eared owl does not occur at the Project site because “[s]uitable habitat is not present at the site.”14 The DEIR’s statement that suitable habitat is not present at the Project site is inconsistent with scientific information. According to the authors of California Bird Species of Special Concern:
“Nesting short-eared owls require open country that supports concentrations of microtine rodents and herbaceous cover sufficient to conceal their ground nests from predators. Suitable habitats may include salt- and freshwater marshes, irrigated alfalfa or grain fields, and ungrazed grasslands and old pastures. Tule marsh or tall grasslands with cover 30–50 cm in height can support nesting pairs.”15
The Project site contains microtine rodents (e.g., voles), freshwater marshes, and ungrazed grasslands.16 This constitutes prime habitat for the species. Indeed, a short-eared owl was

6 DEIR, p. 3.3-5.
7 DEIR, Appendix C.1, Biological Resources Report, pp. 20 and 21. 8 See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021. Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds, Falls Church, Virginia. Table 6. Available at:
<https://www.fws.gov/media/birds-conservation-concern-2021pdf>. 9 DEIR, Appendix C.6, M & A 2018 Devlin Road Biological Resources Assessment, p. 4. 10 California Natural Diversity Database. 2022. Special Animals List. April 2022. 11 eBird. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Checklists S101721785 and S103646781.
12 Cackling geese resemble Canada geese, and therefore, some or all of the Canada geese detected at the Project site may have been cackling geese.
13 Silveira JG. 1998. Avian Uses of Vernal Pools and Implications for Conservation Practice. In: Witham CW, Bauder ET, Belk D, Ferren WR Jr, Ornduff R (editors). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. p. 92-106. 14 DEIR, Appendix C.1, Biological Resources Report, Attachment 2, Table 2. 15 Shuford WD, T Gardali (editors). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game. 16 DEIR, p. 3.3-4 and Appendix C.9, Brent Helm 2021 Rare Plant Survey Report, p. 14.

CASHEN

3 4
1024
4 flushed from vegetation along No Name Creek during a recent survey at the Napa Logistics Park.17 For these reasons, the DEIR must analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts on the short-eared owl and its habitat.

Rare Plants
Dr. Brent Helm conducted botanical field surveys at the Project site on April 7, 2021, May 4, 2021, and May 17, 2021. The DEIR states: “[b]ased on the Helm Biological Consulting botanical survey results, no special-status plant species occur on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to special-status species would occur from construction of the proposed project. No mitigation is warranted for special-status plants.”18 There are two reasons why the DEIR’s conclusions are not warranted. First, the surveys were conducted during a drought year. Many vernal (or ephemeral) pool plant species have seeds that can remain dormant for many years, an adaptation that allows them to survive through periods of drought.19 Dr. Helm’s rare plant survey report admits that nine of the rare plant species that could occur at the Project site are wetland dependent, and that below annual rainfall that occurred in 2020/2021 could have affected Dr. Helm’s ability to detect presence of those species.20 Second, the surveys did not encompass the blooming periods of all of the target species.

Specifically:
• Napa bluecurls (Trichostema ruygtii) is an annual herb that blooms between June and October.21 Specimen records in the California Consortium of Herbaria provide evidence of times of year a species is identifiable (i.e., its identity can be verified by an herbarium).

The California Consortium of Herbaria has 19 specimens of Napa bluecurls collected in Napa County. All of those specimens were collected between July and September.22 Dr.

Helm did not visit a reference site to provide evidence that Napa bluecurls would have been evident and identifiable when he conducted his surveys in May 2021.23 • Pappose tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi) is an annual herb that blooms between May and November, depending on ecoregion, climatic conditions, and other variables that influence plant phenology. Although Helm conducted surveys on May 4 and May 17, it is very rare for pappose tarplant to bloom that early in Napa County. The California Consortium of Herbaria has 42 specimens of pappose tarplant collected in Napa County. Only three of the specimens were collected during the month of May, two of which consisted of seedlings collected on May 5, 1957.24 Most of the remaining

17 eBird. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Checklist S103646781.
18 DEIR, p. 3.3-23.
19 See <https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Vernal-Pools>. 20 DEIR, Appendix C.9, Brent Helm 2021 Rare Plant Survey Report, Appendix A. 21 Ibid. 22 Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available at:
<ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cch_archive/>. (Accessed July 5, 2022). 23 DEIR, Appendix C.9, Brent Helm 2021 Rare Plant Survey Report, p. 9. 24 Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available at:
<ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cch_archive/>. (Accessed July 5, 2022).

CASHEN

4 5a
5b
1025
5 specimens were collected much later in the year (e.g., September and October).25 Therefore, although pappose tarplant occasionally is detectable in May, Dr. Helm did not visit a reference site to confirm that pappose tarplant was evident and identifiable when he conducted his surveys in May 2021.26
Because the surveys were not conducted when all potentially occurring rare plants were both evident and identifiable (as stipulated in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [“CDFW”] survey protocol),27 there is insufficient evidence to support the DEIR’s determination that “no special-status plant species occur on the project site.”

PROJECT IMPACTS ISSUES
Wetlands
According to the DEIR, the Project would impact 3.7 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools. However, nowhere does the DEIR discuss the ecological functions of the wetlands at the Project site, nor does it analyze the Project’s indirect impacts on wetlands outside of the development footprint.

Vernal pool landscapes provide important habitat for birds at the local, regional, and continental scales.28 On a local scale, vernal pools are part of a complex of habitats where a diversity of birds use various resources. On a regional scale, vernal pool landscapes enhance migratory bird habitats. On a continental scale, vernal pool landscapes provide vital links in the California portion of the Pacific Flyway corridor.

When flooded, vernal pools (or surrogates) are relatively shallow, resulting in optimal foraging depths for a variety of waterbirds. In addition, the relatively short hydroperiod of vernal pools (and surrogates) results in abundant wetland invertebrate fauna during spring, when birds require protein-rich resources to meet the energy demands of spring migration.29 Scientific literature has demonstrated that seasonal wetlands are critical to waterbird survival and recruitment.30 For example, migratory shorebirds use temporary wetlands as stopover areas that may provide enough food to nearly double their body mass in a relatively short period.

Grasslands associated with vernal pool landscapes in California also provide critical foraging habitat for birds. For example, during spring hyperphagia, cackling and Ross’ geese spend considerable time grazing on protein rich plants in herbaceous habitats adjacent to vernal pools, while terrestrial gleaning shorebirds (e.g., curlews, plovers, and godwits) feed on beetles,

25 Ibid. 26 DEIR, Appendix C.9, Brent Helm 2021 Rare Plant Survey Report, p. 9. 27 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. p. 6. 28 Silveira JG. 1998. Avian Uses of Vernal Pools and Implications for Conservation Practice. In: Witham CW, Bauder ET, Belk D, Ferren WR Jr, Ornduff R (editors). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid.

CASHEN

5b
6 1026
6 spiders, and bees. These protein rich resources enable the birds to build nutrient reserves sufficient to reach their northern breeding grounds in good condition.

It is clear that the wetlands and grasslands at the Project site provide important habitat for a variety of birds, including numerous waterfowl and shorebird species.31 For example, Monk & Associates reported “large flocks of migrating and over-stopping marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa) and long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus)” probing for insects in the ground and cow “patties” at the Project site.32
The City has determined that implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR “would offset permanent impacts in-kind to the palustrine emergent wetland and in-kind to the vernal pools and ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, thus reducing potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.”33 Although the proposed mitigation might ensure no-net loss of wetland area, it would not ensure no-net loss of wetland functions and values (which is the goal of the Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 programs).34 The mitigation proposed in the DEIR entails preservation and creation of wetlands in a 44.8-acre “Wetland Preserve.” This “preserve” would: (a) be located between the Project site and the Napa Logistics Center Project site, (b) be bisected by the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project, and (c) have no connectivity to any other open space lands.35 Thus, the preserve would function as a habitat “island” surrounded by urban (industrial) development.

Human disturbance, which interrupts feeding, resting, and reproductive behaviors, and uses energy associated with flight, has been identified as a major factor influencing the distribution and abundance of birds and other wildlife.36 The “Wetland Preserve” proposed in the DEIR would be subject to ongoing disturbance caused by traffic, noise, and human activity associated with the Project. Disturbance stimuli associated with the Project would degrade the preserve’s functions as wildlife habitat. MM LU-3, which requires measures to reduce the attraction of birds to the wetland preserve, would further diminish the preserve’s functions as habitat. As a result, MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 would not reduce the Project’s impacts on wetlands to lessthan-significant levels.

31 See DEIR, Appendix C.6, M & A 2018 Devlin Road Biological Resources Assessment, Table 2. 32 Ibid, p. 4. 33 DEIR, p. 3.3-32. 34 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. See also State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.
35 See DEIR, Appendix C.6, M & A 2018 Devlin Road Biological Resources Assessment, Figure 2. 36 Frid A, Dill L. 2002. Human-caused disturbance stimuli as a form of predation risk. Conservation Ecology 6(1):11. See also Silveira JG. 1998. Avian Uses of Vernal Pools and Implications for Conservation Practice. In:

Witham CW, Bauder ET, Belk D, Ferren WR Jr, Ornduff R (editors). Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems – Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. p. 92-106. See also Kaseloo PA, Tyson KO. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. See also Reijnen R, Foppen R, Veenbaas G. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:567-581. See also Ortega CP. 2012. Effects of Noise Pollution on Birds: A Brief Review of Our Knowledge. Ornithological Monographs 74:6-22.

CASHEN

6 1027
7 Swainson’s Hawk
Swainson’s hawks were observed foraging at the Project site during a site reconnaissance survey conducted during the nesting season.37 According to the DEIR: “[d]evelopment of the proposed project would also provide and preserve in perpetuity approximately 45 acres of open space that would include habitat currently suitable for foraging by the Swainson’s hawk as indicated by the observation of a Swainson’s hawk foraging in the site in spring 2021.”38 Whereas the Project would preserve approximately 45 acres of foraging habitat, it would also result in the net loss of 163 acres of foraging habitat.39 In addition, the Project “would be designed and managed to discourage wildlife use of the site,” and MM LU-3 would incorporate measures “to reduce the bird attractant potential of the wetland area, consistent with the [Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan] policies.”40 The Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has ranked the relative hazard of various wildlife groups to aircraft. Hawks are one of the wildlife groups most commonly involved in damaging strikes to aircraft in the United States.41 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the wildlife hazard reduction measures required under MM LU-3 would include measures to reduce the attraction of Swainson’s hawks to the 45-acre open space preserve.

Loss of foraging habitat is one of the primary threats to Swainson’s hawks in California.42 In addition to generating a potentially significant impact under CEQA, the loss of foraging habitat from the Project site may result in the take (killing) of Swainson's hawks, which would be a violation of Section 2080 of California Fish and Game Code.43 The DEIR provides the following analysis of this issue:
“Based upon the limited number of Swainson’s hawk records within a 10-mile radius of the project site, there is sufficient foraging habitat in and within the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the limited number of known Swainson’s hawk to occur within a 10 mile radius of the project site and the acreage of existing foraging habitat currently protected, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to foraging habitat directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, therefore no mitigation is warranted for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.”44
There are several flaws with the DEIR’s analysis. First, the DEIR fails to substantiate the assertion that there are only a “limited number of Swainson’s hawk records within a 10-mile radius of the project site.” To the contrary, the California Natural Diversity Database

37 DEIR, Appendix C.1, Biological Resources Report, p. 28. 38 DEIR, p. 3.3-24.
39 DEIR, pp. 3.9-51 and -52.
40 Ibid. 41 Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Hazardous Attractants on or near Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200- 33B. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
42 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Status Review: Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in California.
43 California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. 44 DEIR, p. 3.3-24.

CASHEN

7a
1028
8 (“CNDDB”) has 8 “processed,”45 and several additional “unprocessed,”46 records of Swainson’s hawk nest sites within a 10-mile radius of the Project site.47 In addition, the eBird database has numerous records of Swainson’s hawks within a 10-mile radius of the Project site (Figure 1, below).48
Second, the Applicant’s effort to locate Swainson’s hawk nests that could be affected by the Project was limited to a single survey (on April 16, 2021), during which the Applicant’s biologist drove roads within one mile of the Project site to inspect trees for raptor nest structures.49 This survey effort was insufficient because it did not adhere to the Swainson’s hawk survey protocol.50 According to the Swainson’s hawk survey protocol, three independent surveys need to be conducted between April 5 and April 20, and surveys during this period “may require a great deal of ‘sit and watch’ surveying.”51 The protocol’s guidance is consistent with my experience monitoring Swainson’s hawks: the nest often is not visible from ground level (e.g., due to position atop a tree with dense foliage) and is only detectable when one of the birds flies to or from the nest site (i.e., through extensive “sit and watch” surveying).

Third, the DEIR provides no evidence (e.g., data) to support its claim that “there is sufficient foraging habitat in and within the vicinity of the project site.” Based on my review of Google Earth imagery, much of the open space that remains in the vicinity of the Project site is comprised of vineyards, marshlands, or other land cover types that provide little to no value as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks.52
To reverse the decline of Swainson’s hawk populations, it is CDFW’s policy that new development projects that adversely modify nesting or foraging habitat within 10 miles of an active nest should mitigate the project’s impacts by providing compensatory mitigation.53 Active Swainson’s hawk nests are located within 5 miles of the Project site.54 Therefore, in accordance with CDFW mitigation guidelines:
“Projects within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree shall provide 0.75 acres of HM [Habitat Management] land for each acre of urban development authorized (0.75:1 ratio). All HM lands protected under this requirement may be protected through fee title acquisition or conservation

45 California Natural Diversity Database. 2022. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife [Jul 3, 2022].
46 Personal communication with R. Elliott, Environmental Scientist, CNDDB on 16 Feb 2018. 47 CNDDB data on Swainson’s hawk nests in Napa County have not been updated since 2013. 48 eBird. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available at: <http://www.ebird.org>. (Accessed July 13, 2022). 49 DEIR, Appendix C.1, Biological Resources Report, pp. 21 and 29. 50 See Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000 May 31. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. 51 Ibid. p. 3. 52 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Status Review: Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in California. See also California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006 (update). Life history account for the Swainson’s hawk. Available at: <https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range>. (Accessed July 12, 2022).
53 California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. 54 Data provided by R. Elliott, Environmental Scientist, CNDDB on 16 Feb 2018.

CASHEN

7a
7b
7c
1029
9 easement (acceptable to the Department) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats which provide foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk.”55 Because the Project site is known to provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks, and because the DEIR does not require compensatory mitigation for impacts to that habitat: (a) the Project would have an unmitigated, significant impact on the Swainson’s hawk; and (b) the Project requires Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Management Authorizations from the CDFW.

Figure 1. eBird records of Swainson’s hawks (blue and red markers) in the vicinity of the Project site (red arrow).

Golden Eagle
An HBG biologist observed a golden eagle foraging at the Project site on April 16, 2021.56 The DEIR’s analysis of impacts to the golden eagle is limited to the potential for Project construction activities to disturb golden eagle nests; the DEIR provide no analysis of the Project’s impacts on golden eagle foraging habitat.

Habitat loss and fragmentation from development negatively affects golden eagles and can diminish prey populations.57 In addition, golden eagles generally avoid areas with high levels of 55 California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. p. 12. 56 DEIR, Appendix C.1, Biological Resources Report, p. 30. 57 Phillips RL. 1986. Current Issues concerning the Management of Golden Eagles in Western U.S.A. In: Chandellor RD, Meyburg BU (editors). Birds of Prey Bulletin no. 3:149–156. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016.

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Rule Revision. Washington: Dept. of Interior.

CASHEN

7c
8 1030
10 development and human or vehicle disturbance.58 In the unlikely event that golden eagles continue to forage at the Project site (i.e., at the proposed Wetland Preserve) after development of the Project, they could be subject to high mortality levels due to collisions with vehicles59 traveling to and from the Project site.60
Best available scientific evidence suggests that the golden eagle population is declining in California and in many other portions of the species’ range.61 As a result, the USFWS has determined that the golden eagle population cannot withstand any additional “take” (e.g., mortality or decrease in productivity).62 The loss of golden eagle foraging habitat can lead to take, as defined in the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.63 Because the DEIR does not incorporate mitigation for the Project’s negative impacts on golden eagle foraging habitat, potentially significant impacts on the species remain unmitigated.

Northern Harrier
The northern harrier forages and may nest at the Project site.64 The DEIR states that MM BIO1c would reduce any potential impacts to nesting northern harriers to less-than-significant levels.65
One of the primary threats to northern harriers is the loss and degradation of nesting and foraging habitat.66 Although the DEIR states “the proposed project would result in an approximately 163- acre reduction in avian foraging habitat,”67 it provides no analysis of the significance of this impact on the northern harrier. Whereas mitigation measures BIO-1c (pre-construction surveys and nest buffers) might prevent direct impacts to northern harriers, the mitigation measure would do nothing to mitigate: (a) the Project’s impacts on habitat, and (b) the potential loss of breeding territories, which are the ultimate source of recruitment (i.e., addition of new individuals to the population). Furthermore, the proposed wetland preserve would not mitigate the impacts because it would not provide the requisite habitat for the species. Northern harriers are susceptible to human disturbance and require a mosaic of large undisturbed habitats for nesting

58 Ibid. See also Wiens JD, Bloom PH, Madden MC, Kolar PS, Tracey JA, Fisher RN. 2022. Golden Eagle Occupancy Surveys and Monitoring Strategy in Coastal Southern California, United States. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 9:665792.
59 Phillips RL. 1986. Current issues concerning the management of golden eagles in western U.S.A. In: Chandellor RD, Meyburg BU (editors). Birds of Prey Bulletin no. 3:149–156. 60 DEIR, p. 3.12-11: “the proposed project is expected to generate an average of 3,888 net-new Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) trips per day.”
61 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Bald and Golden Eagles: Population demographics and estimation of sustainable take in the United States, 2016 update. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington D.C., USA. 101 pp.
62 Ibid. 63 See <https://www.fws.gov/law/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act>. 64 DEIR, p. 3.3-25. 65 Ibid. 66 Shuford WD, Gardali T (editors). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
67 DEIR, p. 3.9-51.

CASHEN

8 9
1031
11 and foraging.68 As discussed previously, the proposed wetland preserve would be a habitat “island” that would be subject to various forms of disturbance associated with the Project. Thus, the wetland preserve would not provide a large patch of undisturbed habitat. For these reasons, the Project’s impacts on habitat for the northern harrier remain potentially significant.

Burrowing Owl
Habitat loss caused by development is the most immediate threat to burrowing owls that reside in high growth areas of the San Francisco Bay Area.69 “Essential Habitat” for burrowing owls includes nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal habitat.70 Accordingly, CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation states the following with regard to impact assessments:
“The impact assessment evaluates the potential loss of nesting burrows, satellite burrows, foraging habitat, dispersal and migration habitat, wintering habitat, and habitat linkages, including habitat supporting prey and host burrowers and other essential habitat attributes. This assessment determines if impacts to the species will result in significant impacts to the species locally, regionally and range-wide per CEQA Guidelines §15382 and Appendix G. The significance of the impact to habitat depends on the extent of habitat disturbed and length of time the habitat is unavailable (for example: minor – several days, medium – several weeks to months, high - breeding season affecting juvenile survival, or over winter affecting adult survival).”71
The DEIR states that use of the site by burrowing owls cannot be ruled out.72 However, contrary to CDFW’s guidance, the DEIR provides no analysis of impacts to burrowing owl habitat.

Breeding burrowing owls are believed to be extirpated from Napa County.73 Due to their strong site tenacity, burrowing owls rarely colonize new sites, or re-colonize historical sites from which they have been extirpated.74 That is, burrowing owls do not merely nest elsewhere when nesting habitat at a site is eliminated. As a result, the presence of nesting burrowing owls at the Project site would be extremely significant from a biological perspective, and elimination of the nesting habitat would be significant and unmitigable.

The DEIR does not require habitat compensation even if burrowing owls are detected at the Project site during pre-construction surveys (MM BIO-1d). In accordance with CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation:

68 Shuford WD, Gardali T (editors). 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
69 Townsend SE, C Lenihan. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. 70 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, p. 24. 71 Ibid, pp. 7 and 8. 72 DEIR, p. 3.3-26.
73 Townsend SE, Lenihan C. 2003. Burrowing Owl Status in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1:60-70. 74 Wilkerson RL, Siegel RB. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10:1-36.

CASHEN