Oxnard City Council
December 6, 2022

Sincerely,
Radhika Kannan
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
Natalia Ospina
Heather Kryczka
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Lucia Marquez
Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy (CAUSE) Mati Waiya
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
1134
ATTACHMENT 4
1135
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
October 18, 2022
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (SCH No. 2020069039)
Dear Mr. Gaytan,
We have reviewed the September 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and December 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (“Project”) located in the City of Oxnard (“City”). Upon review, we find that the FEIR is insufficient in addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As asserted in our February 9th, 2022 comment letter, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential impacts on the environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Analysis of Impacts
In our February 9th comment letter, we found that the DEIR’s finding of-less-than-significant impacts associated with Hazards and Hazardous Materials were made without an adequate evaluation of potential impacts and the findings should not be relied upon for the purposes of determining significance. To adequately disclose and mitigate Hazards and Hazardous Materials, we stated a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was necessary for the Project site. The FEIR did not address this comment adequately.

In response to comment 206-232 and 206-233 (p. 12-1199), the FEIR provides no explanation to failing to address the comment we made, that the failure to prepare a Phase I ESA was inconsistent with the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan Safety and Hazards Chapter, which states:
1136
2 Policy SH-7.12 Hazardous Material Studies. Ensure that the proponents of new development projects address hazardous materials concerns through the preparation of Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies for each identified site as part of the design phase for each project.

The responses provide no explanation as to why Policy SH-7.12 was not followed. As the policy states, a Phase I ESA is necessary and a an updated EIR should be prepared to include a Phase I.

Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions In our February 9th comment letter, we identified several issues with the DEIR’s air model (California Emissions Estimator Model, “CalEEMod”)1 that artificially reduced the Project’s construction and operational emissions. After review of the FEIR, we found that it fails to address all our concerns and maintain that the DEIR’s CalEEMod model is flawed and fails to accurately estimate the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions. As such, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s local and regional air quality impacts. Until a proper air quality analysis is conducted, the Project should not be approved.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” CalEEMod model included several unsubstantiated changes to the default individual construction phase lengths. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate for two reasons, and maintain that the less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion is unsubstantiated.

Specifically, regarding the changes to the default individual construction phase lengths, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to mention or justify the individual construction phase lengths. As shown in Appendix A to Appendix D of the Draft EIR, the construction phasing is based on the Client provided RFI. As such, any changes to the default phasing were based on the project applicant provided information. For this type of project, CalEEMod does not provide default construction information. As such, the use of applicant provided information is imperative for construction phasing inputs. No further response is needed” (emphasis added) (Response 206-241, p. 12-1201).

However, the FEIR again fail to provide the above-mentioned Client Provided RFI. As such, we cannot verify that the changes are an accurate reflection of the proposed construction schedule. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
1137
3 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 2

Here, until the FEIR provides the above-mentioned Client Provided RFI and shows the calculations used for the revised individual construction phase lengths, we cannot verify the changes are accurate.

These unsubstantiated changes to the individual construction phase lengths present an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not for others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).3
Thus, by disproportionately altering and extending some of the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As such, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day. As a result, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Thus, we reiterate our February 9th comment that the DEIR’s CalEEMod model is unsubstantiated, and the DEIR and FEIR’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Unit Amounts As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” CalEEMod model included several unsubstantiated changes to the off-road construction equipment unit amounts. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct this modeling error. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and 2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 12. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 32.
1138
4 maintain that the less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion is unsubstantiated. Specifically, regarding the changes to the default off-road construction equipment unit amounts, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR fails to mention or justify the unit amounts of equipment. The model inputs used in the technical study are consistent with the Draft EIR’s project description, as shown in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR. Project specific information was included in the modeling in accordance with the requirements of CalEEMod and CEQA in order to provide more project-specific analysis of potential impacts. These project specific inputs were shown in detail in Appendix D of the Draft EIR” (emphasis added) (Response 206-246, p. 12- 1201).

As demonstrated above, the FEIR states that the off-road construction equipment unit amounts were noted in Section 1.3 of the Draft EIR DEIR’s. However, upon further review, the DEIR and associated documents fail to mention or justify the off-road construction equipment unit amounts in the project description or elsewhere in the Project documents. As such, we cannot verify that the changes are an accurate reflection of the proposed construction equipment. As previously stated, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 4

Here, as the DEIR and FEIR fail to provide substantial evidence to support the off-road construction equipment unit amounts, we cannot verify the changes. As such, we reiterate our February 9th comment that the Project’s CalEEMod model is unsubstantiated, and the DEIR and FEIR’s less-than-significant air quality impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the DEIR failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. Review of the FEIR again demonstrates a failure to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts. As such, we find the FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the DEIR’s less-than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied upon. Regarding the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project construction and operation, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR ignores the use of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Air Quality Assessment Guidelines with response to health risk impacts. The VCAPCD 2003 Guidelines, Section 6.5.1, Determining Whether the Project will Emit Toxic Air Contaminants states that lead agencies should refer to Appendix D, Major Toxic Air Contaminant Regulations and Common Toxic Air Contaminant Sources and Substances, for a list of common toxic air contaminant sources and substances that may be encountered at facilities 4 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 12.
1139
5 in Ventura County and Appendix B, Common Equipment and Processes Requiring a VCAPCD Permit to Operate. The project would include offroad equipment during construction which may emit diesel particulate matter. However, construction would be temporary, lasting up to 200 days, and would not be concentrated in one area of the site. Thus, emissions would disperse rapidly and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Furthermore, the project would not exceed applicable VCAPCD significance thresholds during construction or operation. Finally, as shown in the closest meteorological station to the project site at the Oxnard Airport, the predominant wind direction blows from the west to the east away from the closest sensitive receptors to the project site. As stated on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, all vehicles stored at this vehicle storage facility would be light duty vehicles; no trucks or diesel-powered vehicles be stored at this facility. As such, the project would not result in air quality impacts related to diesel powered vehicles and idling trucks. Please refer to Global Response GR-4, Traffic Related Pollution and Health Risks. Regarding electrification of the Port fleet, the comment does not reference the content of nor challenge the adequacy of the Draft EIR, and no further response is required” (p. 12-1171).

Furthermore, the FEIR states:
“Commenters also claim that the Draft EIR should address health impacts related to increased diesel emissions and particulate matter. As identified in the Draft EIR (Section 5.3.5, Air Quality Project Impacts and Mitigation) Measures, pp. 5.3-12), the project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of substantial pollutant concentrations exceeding state or federal standards or in excess of health risk criteria for toxic air contaminants and impacts would be less than significant. The operational and construction emissions generated by the project were remodeled in CalEEMod in the Final EIR to account for all proposed land uses, to reflect the 316 daily operational trips as discussed in the Draft EIR, and to remove certain reductions used in the Draft EIR CalEEMod analysis (see the updated emissions tables in Final EIR, Section 5.3.5, Air Quality Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, pp. 5.3- 12, and Appendix D, CalEEMod Output Results of this Final EIR). As shown in this Final EIR, the corrections do not result in a change in any significance determination previously disclosed in the Draft EIR, nor do they indicate a substantially more severe environmental impact than was previously disclosed. Thus, the operational and construction emissions generated by the project would continue to not exceed applicable significance thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of substantial pollutant concentrations exceeding state or federal standards or in excess of health risk criteria for toxic air contaminants” (Response GR-4, p. 12-10).

As demonstrated above, the FEIR claims that preparing a quantified construction and operational HRA is not necessary, as the emissions generated by the Project would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. However, this is incorrect. As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the Project’s failure to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA is inconsistent with the Office of 1140
6 Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”).
5 As such, until both the Project’s construction and
operational health risks are quantified, summed together, and compared to the VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million, the FEIR’s response is inadequate, and we maintain our February 9th comment that the FEIR failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 319.8 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which does not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-12). Furthermore, the FEIR’s analysis relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City’s Energy Action Plan (“EAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 5.8-13). However, review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately evaluate potential GHG impacts. As discussed below, we maintain that the DEIR’s and FEIR’s GHG analyses, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, are incorrect for three reasons:
(1) The DEIR and FEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis rely upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model;
(2) The DEIR and FEIR rely upon an unsupported quantitative threshold; and (3) The DEIR and FEIR fail to identify a potentially significant GHG impact. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relied upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model. Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to justify or correct some of these modeling errors. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the Project’s less-than-significant GHG impact determination is unsubstantiated. Specifically, regarding the Project’s air modeling, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. The Final EIR is updated as reflected in Responses to Comment 206-235 through 206-258 and changes to the Draft EIR are included in Section 5.8 of the Final EIR.” (p. 12-1204).

However, this response is inadequate. While we acknowledge that the FEIR substantiated or corrected most of their modeling input parameters, the FEIR still fails to sufficiently address all of our comments regarding the Project’s flawed CalEEMod models. Specifically, the FEIR fails to provide access to the “Client provided RFI,” which is cited as justification for the revised construction-related CalEEMod input parameters, as previously discussed. As such, emissions associated with the Project remain underestimated, and the DEIR’s and FEIR’s quantitative GHG analyses should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. As such, we reiterate our February 9th comment that the DEIR’s 5 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html 1141
7 CalEEMod models are unsubstantiated, and the DEIR’s and FEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon.
2) Incorrect Reliance Upon an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, the DEIR relies upon an unsupported GHG threshold.

Review of the FEIR demonstrates that the Project again fails to adequately justify or correct this error. As discussed below, we find the DEIR and FEIR to be inadequate and maintain that the Project’s less-thansignificant GHG impact determination is unsubstantiated.

As previously stated, the FEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 319.8 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-12).

Regarding the DEIR’s use of an interim threshold, the FEIR states:
“The comment states that the Draft EIR incorrectly relied upon an outdated quantitative GHG threshold. The City understands that the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was proposed a decade ago and was never adopted. However, the 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold was developed and recommended by SCAQMD, an expert agency, based on substantial evidence as provided in the Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas Significance Threshold (SCAQMD 2008) document and subsequent Working Group meetings (latest in 2010).

This threshold uses the Executive Order S-3-05 goal as the basis, so it is not tied to only the 2020 target year and is thus not outdated. This threshold is also based on the 90% capture rate methodology, which means that 90% of total emissions from all new or modified projects would be subject to some type of CEQA analysis, which was the approach taken by SCAQMD to establish the stationary/industrial source threshold, as well as by the California Air Resources Board (for interim threshold for stationary source projects) and one of the options suggested by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (quantitative threshold based on market capture). Further, this threshold has been used for hundreds, if not thousands of GHG analyses performed for projects located within the SCAQMD jurisdiction. As such, the use of the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold is appropriate and substantiated” (p. 12-1183).

However, the DEIR’s use of this threshold remains incorrect. Regardless of the FEIR’s claims, the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone (2030 or 2050).6
As discussed in our February 9th comment letter, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, rather than relying upon the outdated 2008 SCAQMD Draft thresholds, we recommend that the Project evaluate GHG 6 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 1142
8 emissions per the next tier and apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.7 3) Unsubstantiated Air Model Indicates a Potentially Significant GHG Impact When applying the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. 8 As previously stated, the DEIR
estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 319.8 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-12).

Furthermore, according to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”9 The FEIR estimates that the Project would generate approximately 14 new jobs (p. 1-6). As the Project does not include any residential land uses, we estimate a service population of 14 people. 10 When dividing the
Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the DEIR, by a service population of 14 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 22.8 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).11 FEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 319.8
Service Population 14
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 22.8
2035 SCAQMD Efficiency Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the DEIR’s provided net annual GHG emission estimates and service population, vastly exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the DEIR or FEIR. As such, we find the FEIR to be inadequate and maintain our February 9th comment that the DEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact determination should not be relied upon, as it is based on an outdated significance threshold. As a result, an updated EIR should be prepared, which includes an updated GHG analysis, and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines.
7 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 8 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 9 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. 10 Calculated: 0 residents + 14 employees = 14 service population. 11 Calculated: (62.3 MT CO2e/year) / (14 service population) = (4.45 MT CO2e/SP/year). 1143
9 Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-GHG-1”), as described below: 12
SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. 12 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 1144
10 n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). w) As applicable for port projects, the following measures should be considered:
- Develop specific timelines for transitioning to zero emission cargo handling equipment (CHE) - Develop interim performance standards with a minimum amount of CHE replacement each year to ensure adequate progress.
- Use short side electric power for ships, which may include tugboats and other ocean-going vessels or develop incentives to gradually ramp up the usage of shore power. - Install the appropriate infrastructure to provide shore power to operate the ships. Electrical hookups should be appropriately sized.
- Maximize participation in the Port of Los Angeles’ Vessel Speed Reduction Program or the Port of Long Beach’s Green Flag Initiation Program in order to reduce the speed of vessel transiting within 40 nautical miles of Point Fermin.
- Encourage the participation in the Green Ship Incentives. - Offer incentives to encourage the use of on-dock rail. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
1145
11 - Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
1146
12 x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
1147
13 v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
1148
14 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hageman CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
1149
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigationand RemediationStrategies
LitigationSupport and Testifying Expert
IndustrialStormwaterCompliance
CEQAReview
Education:

M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.

ProfessionalCertifications:

California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
ProfessionalExperience:

Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment A
1150
2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
• Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vaporintrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications forlarge solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Seniorresearcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
1151
3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 1152
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 1153
5 principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peerreview of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
1154
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
1155
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te ri zati on and Cl ean up at Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 1156
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011.
1157

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.

Attachment B
1158

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.
1159

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.
1160

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International 1161

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
1162

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. 1163

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
1164

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
1165

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
1166

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
1167
ATTACHMENT 5
1168
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
February 9, 2022
Fernando Gaytan
Earthjustice
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Subject: Comments on the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (SCH No. 2020069039)
Dear Mr. Gaytan,
We have reviewed the December 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Port of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project (“Project”) located in the City of Oxnard (“City”). The Project proposes to construct a temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility, with 27.5 acres of parking accommodation and a 240-SF guard house, as well as 4,944 parking spaces on the 34-acre site.

Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the surrounding environment.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Inadequate Analysis of Impacts
The DEIR found less than significant impacts or no impact associated with hazards and hazardous materials. These findings were made without an adequate evaluation of potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts and the findings should not be relied upon for the purposes of determining significance.
1169
2 The failure to prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) is inconsistent with the City of Oxnard 2030 General Plan which is to be used to guide development to the year 2030. The 2030 General Plan Safety and Hazards Chapter states:

Policy SH-7.12 Hazardous Material Studies. Ensure that the proponents of new development projects address hazardous materials concerns through the preparation of Phase I or Phase II hazardous materials studies for each identified site as part of the design phase for each project.

To adequately disclose and mitigate hazards and hazardous materials, a Phase I ESA needs to be completed for the Project site. The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in the preparation of CEQA documents to identify and disclose hazardous waste issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup.

Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (“ASTM”).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions that would indicate a release of hazardous substances, like residual pesticides, and include:
• a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities;
• an inspection;
• interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards.

Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public.

A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in a full CEQA analysis to identify recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. If past land uses include RECs, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels, 2 should be further evaluated
and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
1 https://www.astm.org/e1527-21.html 2 https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2019/04/HHRA-Note-3-June-2020-A.pdf 1170
3 A Phase I ESA is especially important to conduct for the Project site because of past agricultural use. A Phase I ESA is necessary to determine if agricultural use has resulted in contamination of soils with residual concentrations of pesticides. A Phase I ESA is also necessary to evaluate all past uses of the site, including what appears to be storage of materials and equipment on the ground surface and the presence of material piles in 2011. Improper storage of materials, including fuels and lubricants may have resulted in release of petroleum compounds and other chemicals into Project site soils.

Source, Google Earth, April 2011
Improper Piecemealing of Project Analysis
According to a letter dated February 28, 2019, the Port of Hueneme states:
“Saybrook Corporate Opportunity Funds, is looking to support this important Multimodal Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency Project by facilitating the private sector investment of $75,000,000, to be used for the soft and hard costs of the acquisition, development, utilities, entitlements, and permitting for 250 acres of land located just 2.4 miles from the central gate of our port” (p. 1).3
As demonstrated above, the Port of Hueneme proposes a larger Multimodal Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency Project, which involves the acquisition, development, utilities, entitlements, and permitting for 250 acres of land. Furthermore, regarding the Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project, the Port of Hueneme states:
“This Project will achieve optimal performance metrics; and will address the interconnectivity needs of our south terminal with other areas of the port resulting in increased mobility of cargo volumes to and from nationally significant freight highways and intermodal networks; and increase Port capacity with the acquisition of 250 acres of land and the development of a Multi 3 See Attachment A.
1171
4 modal Logistics Park including a state of the art Clean Truck Charging & Fueling Station upon it” (p. 1 – 2).4
As demonstrated above, the Port of Hueneme intends to increase Port capacity with the acquisition of 250 acres of land. Finally, regarding the proposed Project’s relation to the Multimodal Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency Project, the Port of Hueneme states:
“The stop gap 34-acre measure discussed herein [proposed Project] will also ensure that the City of Oxnard and the PoH will have sufficient time to structure and meet all regulatory requirements for the longer term 250-acre port logistics park with access to rail” (p. 2). 5 As such, the proposed Project is a temporary measure to allow the City and Port sufficient time to structure and meet all regulatory requirements needed for the larger Multimodal Optimization and Vehicle Efficiency Project. However, this is an example of piecemealing. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals’ (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on “Project Description”:
“Piecemealing or segmenting means dividing a project into two or more pieces and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document, rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document.”6
The guidance goes on to state:
“This is explicitly forbidden by CEQA, because dividing a project into a number of pieces would allow a Lead Agency to minimize the apparent environmental impacts of a project by evaluating individual pieces separately, each of which may have a less-than-significant impact on the environment, but which together may result in a significant impact. Segmenting a project may also hinder developing comprehensive mitigation strategies.”7 As such, by dividing the anticipated Port expansion into smaller projects, the Port of Hueneme minimizes the Project’s environmental impacts. As the proposed Project is only occupies 34 acres, the DEIR fails to account for the long-term regional impacts associated with the consequent larger Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project, such as the widespread increase in vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) and the consequent transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas impacts associated with a Port expansion. Thus, the DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts should not be relied upon. We recommend that an updated EIR be prepared to evaluate the entirety of the Project’s environmental impacts and implement mitigation strategies accordingly. 4 See Attachment B.
5 See Attachment C.
6 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Project Description.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Project%20Description%202020%20Update.pdf, p. 2. 7 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Project Description.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Project%20Description%202020%20Update.pdf, p. 2. 1172
5 Air Quality
Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The DEIR’s air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2020.4.0 (Vol. I, p. 5.3-10). 8 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.

When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study (“AQ & GHG Study”) as Appendix D to the DEIR, we found that several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. Therefore, an updated EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.

Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses
According to the DEIR:
“A 240-square-foot temporary guard house/office trailer would be installed to provide 24-hour security services for the temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility” (Vol I, p. 1-3).

As demonstrated above, the model should have included 240-SF of office space to account for the proposed guard house/office trailer. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model fails to include the proposed office space (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 143, 170).

As you can see in the excerpt above, the model fails to include the proposed office space. This inconsistency presents an issue, as CalEEMod includes 63 different land use types that are each assigned a distinctive set of energy usage emission factors.9 Furthermore, each land use type includes a specific trip rate that CalEEMod uses to calculate mobile-source emissions.10 Thus, by failing to include all 8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide, Appendix D.” CAPCOA, September 2016, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 10 CalEEMod User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2, p. 14. 1173
6 proposed land use types, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Individual Construction Phase Lengths Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model includes several changes to the default individual construction phase lengths (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 144-145, 171-172).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following construction schedule (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 149, 177):

As you can see in the excerpts above, the grubbing phase was decreased by 45%, from a default value of 20 to 11 days; the site preparation phase was decreased by 50%, from a default value of 20 to 10 days; the grading phase was decreased by 56%, from a default value of 45 to 20 days; the building installation and fencing phase was increased by 125%, from a default value of 20 to 45 days; the gravel installation phase was decreased by 69%, from a default value of 35 to 11 days; and the landscaping phase was increased by 70%, from a default value of 20 to 34 days. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.11 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Based on Client provided RFI; building install only 240 sf guardhouse, phase mostly installing fencing” (Appendix D, pp. 144, 171).
11 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/01_user-39-s-guide2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 1, 14. 1174
7 Furthermore, regarding the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, the DEIR states:
“The grading and construction activities are anticipated to take approximately 180 to 200 days” (Vol I, DEIR, pp. 14).

However, these justifications remain insufficient for two reasons.

First, the DEIR and associated documents fail to provide the above-mentioned client-provided Request for Information (“RFI”). As such, until additional information becomes available that substantiates the changes to the individual construction phase lengths, we cannot verify the revised values are accurate.

Second, while the DEIR indicates the total construction duration, the DEIR fails to mention or justify the individual construction phase lengths. This is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 12
Here, as the DEIR only justifies a total grading and construction duration of approximately 180 to 200 days, the DEIR fails to provide substantial evidence to support the revised individual construction phase lengths. As such, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as the construction emissions are improperly spread out over a longer period of time for some phases, but not others. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).13 As such, by disproportionately altering the individual construction phase lengths without proper justification, the model may underestimate the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of 12 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 12. 13 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 31. 1175
8 construction. Thus, until the DEIR provides the client-provided RFI or substantiates the individual construction phase lengths, the model should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Unit Amounts Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model includes several changes to the default off-road construction equipment unit amounts (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 145, 172).

As a result of these changes, the model includes the following off-road equipment (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 149-151, 177-178).

Note: This is only a partial image of the revised off-road construction equipment list. 1176
9 As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.14 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justifications provided for these changes are:
“Based on client provided RFI” (Appendix D, pp. 144, 171).

Furthermore, the DEIR states:
“Based on Applicant-provided information, the proposed project would require use of backhoes, dozers, dumpers/tenders, generators, front end loaders, sweepers, and a water truck during the grubbing and site preparation phase” (Vol I, p. 5.3-10).

However, this justification remains insufficient for two reasons.

First, as the DEIR and associated documents fail to provide the above-mentioned client-provided RFI. As such, until additional information becomes available that substantiates the changes to the off-road construction equipment unit amounts, we cannot verify the revised values are accurate.

Second, while the DEIR indicates the types of equipment required during construction, the DEIR fails to mention or justify the unit amounts. As previously stated, this is incorrect, as according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.” 15
Here, as the DEIR and associated documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the revised off-road equipment unit amounts, we cannot verify the changes.

These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the off-road construction equipment to calculate the emissions associated with construction.16 By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment unit amounts, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Unsubstantiated Changes to Vendor Trip Numbers
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model includes several changes to the default vendor trip numbers (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 146, 173).
14 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 15 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 12. 16 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 32. 1177
10 As you can see in the excerpt above, the vendor trip numbers were increased from the default value of 0- to 2-trips. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.17 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is:
“Based on assumptions of 2 water truck (vendor) trips, 10 cy trucks for import material, and hauling distance to soil import site approx. 25 miles” (Appendix D, pp. 144, 171).

However, this justification remains insufficient, as the DEIR cannot simply assume the Project would only result in 2 water truck trips. As previously discussed, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
“CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA” (emphasis added).18
Here, as the DEIR and associated documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the number of vendor trips required for Project construction, we cannot verify the revised values.

These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the vendor trip numbers to estimate the construction-related emissions associated with on-road vehicles.19 Thus, by including several unsubstantiated changes to the default vendor trip numbers, the model may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Weekday and Saturday Operational Vehicle Trip Rates According to the Port Hueneme Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Traffic Study:
“The proposed outdoor storage facility would generate 316 peak daily trips, 48 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips” (Appendix J, p. 9).

As demonstrated above, the Project expects to generate 316 daily operational vehicle trips. As such, the Project’s emissions modeling should have included trip rates that reflect the estimated number of daily vehicle trips. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Port of Hueneme 34- 17 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 18 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 19 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 34. 1178
11 acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model includes only 291.9 weekday and Saturday vehicle trips (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 164, 192).

As demonstrated in the excerpt above, the weekday and Saturday vehicle trips are each underestimated by 24.1 trips.20 As such, the model is inconsistent with the information provided in the DEIR.

These inconsistencies present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the operational vehicle trip rates to calculate the emissions associated with the operational on-road vehicles.21 Thus, by including an underestimated number of average daily vehicle trips, the model underestimates the Project’s mobile-source emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Analysis of Mobile-Source Operational Emissions Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model includes no primary, diverted, or pass-by trip purpose percentages (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 164, 192).

As a result of these changes, the model fails to calculate annual vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 164, 192):

Thus, by setting the trip purpose percentages to zero, the model negates the emissions associated with the Project’s operational daily vehicle trips. As such, while the average weekday, Saturday, and Sunday vehicle trips are included in the model, they are not accounted for in the emissions calculations.

Specifically, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation to calculate VMT:
22 “CalEEMod calculates annual VMT by multiplying VMTd by 365 days/year.

VMTd = ∑ ( Average Daily Trip Rate I * Average Overall Trip Length i ) n” 20 Calculated: (316 total vehicle trips) – (291.9 vehicle trips) = 24.1 underestimation. 21 “CalEEMod User Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 35. 22 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 22 1179
12 As demonstrated above, average daily trip rate and average overall trip length both directly impact annual VMT. Furthermore, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation to calculate the average overall trip length: 23
As such, given that no primary, diverted, or pass-by trips are included in the model, CalEEMod calculates an average overall trip length of zero, resulting in an annual VMT of zero (regardless of the average daily trip rates). Thus, the model incorrectly evaluates the Project’s mobile-source emissions. Until operational vehicle trips are correctly accounted for, the model underestimates the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of Construction-related Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model includes the following construction-related mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 151, 179).

As a result, the model includes an unpaved road vehicle speed of 5 miles per hour (“MPH”) (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 144, 171).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.24 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these inclusions is:
“Default to watering to 2 times per day to abide by SWPPP and VCAPCD Rule 55, 55.1 and 55.2” (Appendix D, pp. 144, 171).
23 Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 23 24 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 1180
13 Furthermore, the DEIR states:
"The following rules and regulations are applicable to the proposed project […] VCAPCD Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust
This rule requires fugitive dust generators to implement control measures to limit the amount of dust from vehicle track-out, earth moving, bulk material handling, and truck hauling activities.

VCAPCD Rule 55.1 – Paved Road and Public Unpaved Roads
This rule requires fugitive dust generators to begin the removal of visible roadway accumulation within 72 hours of any written notification from the VCAPCD. The use of blowers is expressly prohibited under any circumstances. This rule also requires controls to limit the amount of dust from any construction activity or any earthmoving activity on a public paved road” (p 5.3-3 –

5.3.4).

However, these justifications are insufficient for two reasons.

First, VCAPCD Rule 55 states:
“3. Truck Hauling: No person (including facility or site operator) shall load or allow the loading of bulk materials or soil onto outbound trucks unless at least one of the following dust prevention techniques is utilized:
a. Use properly secured tarps or cargo covering that covers the entire surface area of the load or use a container-type enclosure.
b. Maintain a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard below the rim of the truck bed where the load touches the sides of the cargo area and insure that the peak of the load does not extend above any part of the upper edge of the cargo area. c. Water or otherwise treat the bulk material to minimize loss of material to wind or spillage.
d. Other effective dust prevention control measures.”25 As the above excerpt demonstrates, the Project is only required to implement at least one of the dust control measures listed above. Furthermore, review of VCAPCD Rule 55 demonstrates that reducing vehicle speed is not a requirement. 26 Thus, the “Water Exposed Area” and “Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads” mitigation measures included in the CalEEMod model are not explicitly required by VCAPCD Rule 55, and we cannot verify their inclusion in the model.

Second, simply because the DEIR states that the Project would comply with SWPPP and VCAPCD Rule 55,

55.1, and 55.2 does not justify the inclusion of the above-mentioned construction-related mitigation 25 “RULE 55 – FUGITIVE DUST.” Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, June 2018, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/Rulebook/Reg4/RULE%2055.pdf, p. 2-3. 26 “RULE 55 – FUGITIVE DUST.” Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, June 2018, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/Rulebook/Reg4/RULE%2055.pdf, p. 4. 1181
14 measures in the model. According to the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“By definition, mitigation measures are not part of the original project design. Rather, mitigation measures are actions taken by the lead agency to reduce impacts to the environment resulting from the original project design. Mitigation measures are identified by the lead agency after the project has undergone environmental review and are above-and-beyond existing laws, regulations, and requirements that would reduce environmental impacts” (emphasis added).27 As you can see in the excerpt above, mitigation measures “are not part of the original project design” and are intended to go “above-and-beyond” existing regulatory requirements. As such, the inclusion of the measures, based on the Project’s compliance with SWPPP and VCAPCD Rule 55, 55.1, and 55.2 alone, is unsubstantiated. By including several construction-related mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Incorrect Application of an Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Port of Hueneme 34-acre Temporary Vehicle Storage Facility” model includes the following energy-related mitigation measure (see excerpt below) (Appendix D, pp. 165, 193).

As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.28 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for this inclusion is:
“Assuming an 75 percent energy reduction due to use of solar light stands. The use of watch tower and trailer would require other nonrenewable energy sources” (Appendix D, pp. 144, 171).

Furthermore, regarding the use of solar light stands, the DEIR states:
“Nineteen solar powered, mobile, low-intensity LED tower light fixtures would be placed along the perimeter of the property” (Vol I, p. 1-3).

However, this inclusion remains unsupported, as the DEIR cannot simply assume that the nineteen solar light fixtures would result in a 75% energy reduction. As previously stated, according to the CalEEMod User’s Guide:
27 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 5. 28 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 13-14. 1182
15 “CalEEMod was also designed to allow the user to change the defaults to reflect site- or projectspecific information, when available, provided that the information is supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA.”29
Here, as the DEIR and associated documents fail to provide substantial evidence to support the assumption that the Project would reduce energy consumption by 75%, the inclusion of the abovementioned energy-related operational mitigation measure is incorrect. By incorrectly including an operational mitigation measure, the model overestimates the anticipated reduction to the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact In an effort to more accurately estimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, we prepared an updated CalEEMod model, using the Project-specific information provided by the DEIR. In our updated model, we included the proposed office land use; proportionately altered the individual construction phase lengths to match the proposed construction duration of 180 days; omitted the unsubstantiated vendor trips and off-road construction equipment unit amounts; corrected the mobilesource trip purpose percentages and the number of operational vehicle trip rates; and excluded the incorrect construction-related and energy related operational mitigation measures.

Our updated analysis estimates that construction-related VOC and NOX emissions exceed the applicable VCAPCD thresholds of 25-pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see table below).30 SWAPE Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Model
Construction

ROG NOX
(lbs/day)
DEIR 9.4 24.9
SWAPE 158.5 52.6
% Increase 1,579% 111%
VCAPCD Threshold 25 25
Exceeds? Yes Yes
As you can see in the table above, construction-related VOC and NOX emissions as estimated by SWAPE, increase by approximately 1,579% and 111%, respectively, and exceed the applicable VCAPCD significance thresholds. Thus, our updated model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the DEIR. As a 29 CalEEMod Model 2013.2.2 User’s Guide, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/usersguideSept2016.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 12. 30 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” VCAPCD, October 2003, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 3-2. 1183
16 result, an updated EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”) (p. 5.3-14). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project, the DEIR states:
“CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities). The proposed project would not be classified as a potential source of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) as the proposed project is a temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility for vehicles coming to/from the Port. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs; TAC impacts would be less than significant” (p. 5.3-14).

As demonstrated above, the DEIR concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact because the proposed land use does not involve toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions.

However, the DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons.

First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions.31 As a consequence, the DEIR fails to address how construction of the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a potential construction period of approximately 180 to 200 days (Vol I, p. 1-2). Furthermore, the Traffic Study, provided as Appendix J to the DEIR, indicates that the Project would generate approximately 316 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions during Project operation (p. 9, Table 2). However, the DEIR fails to evaluate Project-generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects.

Furthermore, when considering the larger Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project, health risk impacts would be amplified as DPM emissions associated with construction-related and operational activities would greatly increase. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s construction-related and operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the DEIR is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse impacts on human health.

Second, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, released its most recent Risk Assessment 31 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 1184
17 Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015.32 This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. As the Project’s construction duration exceeds the 2-month requirement set forth by OEHHA, it is clear that the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance. Furthermore, the OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months be evaluated for the duration of the project to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”). As the DEIR indicates that the Project will operate for a maximum of five years, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 5-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, we recommend that an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Projectgenerated DPM emissions be included in an updated EIR for the Project.

Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the VCAPCD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.33 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.

Greenhouse Gas
Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts
The DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of

62.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which does not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-13). Furthermore, the DEIR’s analysis relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City’s Energy Action Plan (“EAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact (p. 5.8-13). However, the DEIR’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for the following four reasons. (1) The DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; (3) The DEIR fails to identify a potentially significant GHG impact; and (4) The DEIR fails to demonstrate consistency with the City’s EAP. 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of

62.3 MT CO2e/year (Vol I, p. 5.8-13). However, the DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated.

As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ & 32 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html 33 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), October 2003, available at: http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 3-5. 1185
18 GHG Study as Appendix D to the DEIR, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the model underestimates the Project’s emissions, and the DEIR’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An updated EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the DEIR estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of

62.3 MT CO2e/year (Vol I, p. 5.8-13). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2/year threshold, the SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.34 Furthermore, AEP guidance states:
“[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.”35
As it is currently February 2022, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the DEIR’s less-thansignificant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.
36 3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact When applying the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. 37 As previously stated, the DEIR
estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 62.3 MT CO2e/year (p. 5.8-13).

Furthermore, according to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service population is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the number of jobs supported by the project.”38 The DEIR estimates that the Project would employ approximately 14 people (Vol I, p. 1-2). As the Project does not 34 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38550, available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 35 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at:
https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 36 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 37 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqasignificance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 38 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. 1186
19 include any residential land uses, we estimate a service population of 14 people. 39 When dividing the
Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the DEIR, by a service population of 14 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 4.45 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).40 DEIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Capita
Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 62.3
Service Population 14
Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 4.45
2035 SCAQMD Efficiency Target 3.0
Exceeds? Yes
As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as estimated by the DEIR’s provided net annual GHG emission estimates and service population, exceed the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the DEIR. As a result, the DEIR’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An updated EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-thansignificant levels. 4) Failure to Demonstrate Consistency with the City of Oxnard’s Energy Action Plan As previously discussed, the DEIR relies upon the Project’s consistency with the City of Oxnard’s Energy Action Plan to determine GHG significance (Vol. I, p. 5.8-13). Specifically, the DEIR states:
“The proposed project includes 19 solar powered, mobile, low-intensity LED tower light fixtures that would be placed on the perimeter of the property. The guard house would be constructed in compliance with Title 24. And native landscaping would be installed to minimize the use of water needed once the native plants are established, which in turn reduces the need to power landscape water systems. Thus, the proposed project has been designed to minimize water, natural gas, and electrical consumption, and would be consistent with the City’s targets identified in the previous paragraph” (Vol. I, p. 5.8-13).

However, simply stating that the proposed Project “has been designed to minimize water, natural gas, and electrical consumption” does not guarantee that the Project will be consistent with the City’s EAP.

Without including such Project Design Features (“PDFs”) as formal mitigation measures, we cannot guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As such, in order to be consistent with the City’s EAP, we recommend the Project include all PDFs as formal mitigation measures.
39 Calculated: 0 residents + 14 employees = 14 service population. 40 Calculated: (62.3 MT CO2e/year) / (14 service population) = (4.45 MT CO2e/SP/year). 1187
20 Until then, the DEIR’s conclusion that the project would be consistent with the City of Oxnard’s EAP is unsubstantiated (Vol. I, p. 5.8-13). Therefore, the Project’s GHG analysis is insufficient and the DEIR’s lessthan-significant impact conclusion should not be relied upon.

Feasible Mitigation Measures under SCAG’s RTP/SCS Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’sAir Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) and Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMMGHG-1”), as described below: 41 SCAG RTP/SCS 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-AQ-1:

In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Minimize land disturbance.
b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB-approved fleet.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes—saves fuel and reduces emissions. 41 “4.0 Mitigation Measures.” Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report Addendum #1, September 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/fpeir_connectsocal_addendum_4_mitigationmeasures.pdf?1606004420, p. 4.0-2 – 4.0-10; 4.0-19 –

4.0-23; See also: “Certified Final Connect SoCal Program Environmental Impact Report.” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), May 2020, available at: https://scag.ca.gov/peir. 1188
21 m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway. n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service.

Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site. q) Require projects within 500 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tier 4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp) unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects. t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). w) As applicable for port projects, the following measures should be considered:
- Develop specific timelines for transitioning to zero emission cargo handling equipment (CHE) - Develop interim performance standards with a minimum amount of CHE replacement each year to ensure adequate progress.
- Use short side electric power for ships, which may include tugboats and other ocean-going vessels or develop incentives to gradually ramp up the usage of shore power. - Install the appropriate infrastructure to provide shore power to operate the ships. Electrical hookups should be appropriately sized.
- Maximize participation in the Port of Los Angeles’ Vessel Speed Reduction Program or the Port of Long Beach’s Green Flag Initiation Program in order to reduce the speed of vessel transiting within 40 nautical miles of Point Fermin.
- Encourage the participation in the Green Ship Incentives. - Offer incentives to encourage the use of on-dock rail. aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
- Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%. - Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. - Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. 1189
22 - Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
- Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.
ii. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.
iii. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
- The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. - The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad construction equipment, or generator onsite, includes:
i. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.
ii. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. iii. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:

1. Source of supply

2. Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) Greenhouse Gas Project Level Mitigation Measures – PMM-GHG-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i. Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii. Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii. Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology; iv. Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting construction materials; v. Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi. Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse;
vii. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
1190
23 viii. Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix. Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x. Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi. Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and xii. Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
e) Measures that encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and car-share programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including, but not limited to the following:
i. Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii. Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii. Improve or increase access to transit;
iv. Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care; v. Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
vi. Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii. Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; viii. Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix. Provide traffic calming measures;
x. Provide bicycle parking;
xi. Limit or eliminate park supply;
xii. Unbundle parking costs;
xiii. Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv. Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction and transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i. Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii. Provide transit passes;
iii. Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services; iv. Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v. Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi. Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; vii. Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i. Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii. Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii. Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees; 1191
24 iv. Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
v. Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for passenger vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i. Staggered starting times
ii. Flexible schedules
iii. Compressed work weeks
n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing, such as:
i. New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options ii. Event promotions
iii. Publications
q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i. Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii. Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii. Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv. Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and v. Educating employees about available alternatives.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or 1192
25 otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: The Port of Hueneme letter dated February 28,2019 Attachment B: INFRA FY19: Multimodal Optimization & Vehicle Efficiency Project Attachment C: City of Oxnard & The Port of Hueneme: Partners in Economic Development Attachment D: Construction Calculations
Attachment E: CalEEMod Output Files
Attachment F: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment G: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
1193
ATTACHMENT 6
1194
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Jay Dobrowalski
City of Oxnard
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030 9 February 2022
RE: Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski,
I write to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by City of Oxnard (2021) in support of a proposed temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility on

33.7 acres of open space at the southeast corner of Hueneme Road and Perkins Road.

The project would add to the site a gravel base, small structures, 6-foot perimeter security fencing, perimeter lighting for parking imported vehicles for a period of up to 5 years. I also reviewed biological resource reports (Rincon 2018, 2020), and a review of those reports by John Storrer (letter to Jay Dobrowalski, 3 August 2018).

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. I study animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-six years. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT
I visited the proposed project site (Photos 1 ‒ 3) from 14:27 until 17:37 hours on 27 January 2022 and from 06:55 until 09:30 hours on 28 January 2022. Conditions were clear with light breeze and 61° F on the 27th, and clear with strong northeast winds and 62° F on the 28th. Lacking permission to walk over the site, I visually scanned it with the aid of binoculars for 5.75 hours. The site proposed for the project had been disked recently, probably last year (Photos 1 and 2), so the soil was broken and the ground uneven. Willows and scrub border the site along its west side, and large trees grow just outside the southwest corner to provide perching opportunities to raptors foraging the site. Adjacent to the south is scrubland managed by The Nature Conservancy; it provides many opportunities for wildlife to find nest substrate and refugia. 1195
2 Photos 1 and 2. Views to the northeast (top) and north (bottom) of the project site, 27 January 2022.

Photo 3. View southeast of adjacent shubland owned by The Nature Conservancy, 27 January 2022.

I detected 47 species of vertebrate wildlife, including up to 12 special-status species (Table 1). (I was uncertain whether the savannah sparrows I saw on site were wintering large-billed or resident Belding’s.) I observed California ground squirrels (Photo 4), red-tailed hawks (Photo 5), Anna’s hummingbirds and Allen’s hummingbirds (Photos 6 and 7), merlin, belted kingfishers and western gulls (Photos 8- 10), double-crested cormorants, house finches, and yellow-rumped warblers (Photos 11-13), white-crowned sparrows, Say’s phoebes, western meadowlarks and the burrow systems of many pocket gophers (Photos 14-17), and blue-gray gnatcatchers which put on quite the show of flycatching for volant insects (Photos 18-22). Exhibiting courtship behaviors, species such as red-tailed hawks, belted kingfishers and double-crested cormorants flew over the project site. I noticed, however, that the wildlife using the airspace of the project site did not likewise use the airspace over the gravel-covered lot immediately east of the site.

Neither did ground squirrels or pocket gophers use the adjacent gravel-covered lot, nor sparrows, western meadowlarks or any other wildlife species other than overflights by western gulls and rock pigeons. Conversely, wildlife often moved between The Nature Conservancy’s scrublands and the Ormond Lagoon Waterway and the project site. 1196
3 Table 1. Species of wildlife I observed during 5.75 hours of survey on 27-28 January 2022.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos flyover
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura On site and flyovers
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native On site and flyovers Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native On site and flyovers Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Foraged on site
Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna in willows along west side Allen's hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC just off site American coot Fulica americana just off site
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus just off site
Shore birds Flock flew by just off site
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC all over the site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, TWL On site and flyovers Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL flyover Great blue heron Ardea herodius tracks
Great egret Ardea alba off site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP foraged over site
Northern harrier Circus hudsonius BCC, SSC3, BOP just off site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP pair foraged site and courted Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon flyover, courtship
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP chased Merlin
Merlin Falco columbarius TWL, BOP foraged over site
Say's phoebe Sayornis saya SW corner
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 just off site American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos On site and flyovers Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea just off site Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula just off site
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus just off site
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos in willows along west side European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native On site and flyovers Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum in Eucalyptus at SW corner American pipit Anthus rubescens On site and flyovers
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus On site and flyovers
1197
4 Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria flyover
Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Call from on site
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys in willows along west side Belding’s or Large-billed
savannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi or
rostratus CE or SSC2
Likely resident Belding’s or
wintering large-billed
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Just off site
Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Just off site
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta On site and flyovers Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus On site and flyovers Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata in willows along west side Coyote Canis latrans tracks
Raccoon Procyon lotor tracks
Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae burrows
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi At burrows on site Desert cottontail Sylvilagus auduboni Just off site
1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CE = California Endangered, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priority 2 or 3 (Shuford and Gardali 2008), TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey).

Photo 4. Two
members of a
colony of
California
ground squirrels
on the site, 27-28
January 2022.

One of the
squirrels is hard
to see to the left of
the standing
squirrel.
1198
5 Photo 5. Red-tailed hawk on the project site, 27 January 2022.

Photos 6 and 7. Anna’s hummingbird (left) and Allen’s hummingbird (right) at and next to the project site, 27 January 2022.
1199
6 Photos 8 and 9. Merlin (left) and belted kingfisher (right) on the project site, 27-28 January 2022.

Photo 10. Western gull on the project site, 27 January 2022. 1200
7 Photo 11. Double-crested cormorant over the project site, 27 January 2022.

Photos 12 and 13. House finch (left) and yellow-rumped warbler (right) next to and on the project site, 27 January 2022.
1201
8 Photos 14 and 15. White-crowned sparrow (left) and Say’s phoebe (right) on the project site, 27 January 2022.

Photos 16 and 17. Western
meadowlark (top) and one of many
soil mounds of pocket gopher burrow
systems on the project site, 27-28
January 2022.
1202
9 Photos 18‒22. Blue-gray
gnatcatcher detects flying
insects (left, visible as small
specks) and prepares a
maneuver to chase one down
(below). At lower left, the
gnatcatcher catches up with
one of the insects, and at
lower right, the insect is gone.

Along with many other
insectivorous birds and bats,
blue-gray gnatcatchers
provide irreplaceable
ecosystem services that
benefit the economy and
human health and well-being.
1203
10 My detections of 47 species of vertebrate wildlife need to be interpreted within the context of the survey effort. No matter who performs a survey, the results of a reconnaissance-level survey qualify as thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of any site, including one proposed for a project. Such a survey can serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community.

There were only so many species I was likely to detect within the short time I had available to perform visual-scan surveys on 27-28 January 2022. However, a focused survey effort in which the times of species detections are noted can inform of the number of species likely to be detected with a larger survey effort of the same methods and the same time of year (Figure 1). This potential is of critical importance when making determinations about occurrence likelihoods of special-status species.

Figure 1. Actual and
predicted relationships
between the number of
vertebrate wildlife species
detected and the elapsed
survey time based on my
visual-scan surveys on 27-
28 January 2022. Note
that the relationships
would differ if the surveys
were based on another
method or during another
season. Also note that the
cumulative number of
vertebrate species across
all methods, times of day,
and seasons would
increase substantially.

I could have detected many more species than predicted had I also performed surveys at different times of day/night to detect nocturnal and crepuscular species with appropriate methods and technology, or surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance. My reconnaissance-level surveys inform me that the site is richer in wildlife than the 47 species documented there so far, but also that the environmental setting of the project remains insufficiently characterized as foundation for analysis of impacts to special-status species. How many 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Minutes into survey
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Actual species count, 27th
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 53.8
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 28.1
Actual species count, 28th
1204
11 more species could I detect by simply repeating the visual-scan surveys on various dates through the year?
To answer the forgoing question, I repeated visual-scan surveys 6 times over the period of one year at a proposed project site near Sacramento, California. Survey outcomes ranged 40 to 67 species per survey, but a least-squares regression model that I fit to the cumulative number of species detections predicted that 157 species of vertebrate wildlife would eventually be detected by continuing to repeat the visual-scan surveys (Figure 2).

Repeated surveys achieved diminishing returns, but they were necessary to document the occurrences of the scarcer and more cryptic species. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, and assuming the pattern of survey returns is robustly represented by Figure 2, the 43 species I detected after my first survey (27 January) at the project site likely represented 29% of the species likely to be detected after six visual-scan surveys.

With five more repeat surveys, I would likely detect 43

0.29 ⁄ = 148 species of vertebrate
wildlife at the site.

Figure 2. Cumulative
number of species detected as
a function of the number of
visual-scan surveys
performed through one year
at one site near Sacramento,
California.

I completed a much larger survey effort in the annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019, I performed 721 1-hour visualscan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I use for surveys at proposed project sites.

At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of cumulative species 1 2 3 4 5 6
Survey
0 20
40 60
80 100
Y
Actual count of species
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 21.2
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
1205
12 detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected. Coefficients of determination of model-fit ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96,

0.98). I projected the predictions of each model to 10,000 hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness, but I was more interested in predicted species richness at a survey effort within the data range, thereby minimizing bias. I averaged the model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys. On average I detected 17 species over the first 5 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass, which composed 29.8 % of the total predicted species I would detect with a much larger survey effort. Note that this value is very close the 29% value I obtained from the Sacramento project site that I used as my first example in Figure 2. Given the example illustrated in Figure 3, and assuming the pattern of survey results is much more robustly represented by Figure 3 than it was in Figure 2, the 47 species I detected after my 5 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 29.8% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys.

With many more repeat surveys, I would likely detect 47

0.298 ⁄ = 158 species of
vertebrate wildlife at the site. Given the much greater robustness of the model derived from the Altamont Pass, it is 158 species of vertebrate wildlife that I predict would be detected at the site after repeat diurnal visual-scan surveys throughout a year.

Figure 3. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.

There is no question that a larger survey effort would result in a longer list of species documented to use the project site, thereby changing our understanding of the current 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
1206
13 environmental setting. But still unknown are which species have yet to be detected, how many of the yet-to-be-detected species are special-status species, and how many are listed species. The likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by the fact that specialstatus species tend to be rarer and thus less detectable than common species. Specialstatus species also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 4). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species, which are inclusive of listed species. Also note that I include California Fully Protected species and federal Candidate species as listed species.) Figure 4. Probability
of detecting ≥1
Candidate, Threatened
or Endangered Species
of wildlife listed under
California or federal
Endangered Species
Acts, based on survey
outcomes logitregressed on the
number of wildlife
species I detected during
152 site visits in
California. The dashed
vertical line represents
the number of species
detected by Rincon and
the solid vertical line
represents the number I
detected.

As was demonstrated in Figures 1 ‒ 3, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort. Greater survey effort also increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected (which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species). Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys that I performed at sites of proposed projects, my survey effort at the project site carried an 64% chance of detecting a listed species, whereas the survey effort of Rincon resulted in the detections of many fewer species and therefore carried a 10.5% chance of detecting a listed species.

Rincon (2018, 2020) did not detect a listed species, and neither did I, but with another 4 or 5 hours of survey I likely would have. I have no doubt that listed species use the site.

Documenting use of the site by listed species would require more survey effort to achieve a reasonable likelihood of detecting them. No reconnaissance-level survey is Number of species detected
Probability of detecting Fully Protected,
Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0
95% CI
152 site visits
1207
14 capable of detecting enough of the wildlife species that occur at a site to realistically characterize the site’s wildlife community. This context bears on my comments regarding potential project impacts to biological resources.

CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the species that use the site and its surrounds, species’ relative abundances, how species use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze project impacts. Methods to achieve this first step typically include surveys of the site for biological resources and reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In this case, these essential steps remain incomplete and insufficiently informative in the DEIR.

Herein I provide a bit more of a characterization of the wildlife community as a component of the current environmental setting, including the identification of specialstatus species likely to use the site at one time or another. First, however, I comment on the Rincon’s effort to inventory biological resources on the site.

Two site visits totaling 3 person-hours were made to the site to inventory biological resources. Three hours were many too few to achieve anywhere close to a realistic inventory of biological resources. Over those 3 person-hours, Rincon (2018. 2020) reported having detected 7 species of vertebrate wildlife. This outcome was 16% of the number of wildlife species that I detected over the same number of person-hours during my first survey, and was only <15% of all the species I detected during both surveys. I must add that Rincon enjoyed full access to the project site, whereas I was relegated to its border. For some reason, and despite their advantage with access, Rincon (2018, 2020) was unable to detect nearly the number of species that I did at the site.

The Rincon survey effort detected only 4.4% of the 158 wildlife species my empirical models predicted based on data from hundreds of other wildlife surveys (see above), and that’s just of the species typically detectable during diurnal visual-scan surveys.

Many additional wildlife surveys would be detectable by performing nocturnal surveys, trapping, or other methods appropriate to the species. Rincon did not inventory biological resources as reported (Rincon 2018, 2020), but rather saw only a few of the many species that used the site at the times of Rincon’s surveys.

Rincon (2018) reported having seen no special-status species during its surveys. This conclusion was inaccurate because the Rincon biologists did see red-tailed hawk and double-crested cormorant, both of which appear on formal lists of species of concern in California. Red-tailed hawk is protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, and double-crested cormorant is on California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s The Watch List. Regardless of the status of these species, it was pseudoscientific of Rincon to report having seen no special-status species after having performed no protocol-level detection surveys for such species. If one insufficiently searches for a species, there is a greater chance one will not detect it.
1208
15 Rincon (2018) also made pseudoscientific use of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). From its CNDDB query, Rincon (2018) reportedly found only 21 special-status species of wildlife documented within 5 miles of the project site.

However, Rincon did not explain the context of this query. CNDDB can be helpful for confirming occurrences of special-status species where they have been reported, but it cannot be relied upon for determining absences of species. CNDDB relies on volunteer reporting, and is limited in its spatial coverage by the access of biologists to private properties. The findings reported to CNDDB are not from any sort of randomized or systematic sampling across California, nor does CNDDB collect reports of negative findings. Another limitation of CNDDB is its focus on special-status species. Most members of any of California’s wildlife communities are not reported to CNDDB, because CNDDB is not interested in them and Scientific Collecting Permits do not require reporting of them. This means that any species recently designated with special status will not be as well represented in CNDDB as are other species that were assigned special status decades ago. The limitations of CNDDB are well-known, and summarized by CDFW in a warning presented on its CNDDB web site (https://wildlife.ca .gov/Data/CNDDB/ Maps-and-Data): “We work very hard to keep the CNDDB and the Spotted Owl Database as current and up-to-date as possible given our capabilities and resources. However, we cannot and do not portray the CNDDB as an exhaustive and comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide. Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an important obligation of our customers…” Rincon’s reporting of its CNDDB query presents a factual outcome that was out of context of how CNDDB is supposed to be used.

Rincon (2018, 2020) did not appear to rely on any other sources of wildlife occurrence data other than CNDDB. Had Rincon relied on eBird and iNaturalist, many more special-status species occurrences at and near the project site would have been evident (see below on my use of these data bases). Based on the findings of my own brief survey of the site, Rincon’s (2018, 2020) CNDDB query result holds no credibility. In only a few hours, I saw up to 12 special-status species at and right next to the project site.

Perhaps one reason for Rincon’s surprisingly cursory efforts to detect special-status species at the site was a predisposition towards the conclusion that special-status species would not occur there. Rincon (2018:7) explained that “special-status wildlife species typically have very specific habitat requirements...,” thereby implying that disturbances to the site would have suppressed the very specific habitat requirements of such species. Rincon (2018) furthers this notion by listing habitat requirements of the species identified by their CNDDB query. These habitat requirements pigeon-holed each species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environments actually used by the species. The scientific definition of habitat is that part of the environment used by an organism (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998, Krausman 2016). After a great many changes wrought by recent activities of Californians, most special-status species will make use of whatever remains of the environment in which they evolved, so long as soils have not been covered by impervious surfaces and vegetation can grow to provide forage and cover and nest sites. Special-status species of wildlife are more capable than Rincon 1209
16 asserts at making use of often-disturbed sites such as the project site. The proof of this is in the species’ actual use of the site. To document such use, an ade1ute survey effort is necessary.

Contrary to Rincon’s reporting and despite efforts to disturb the site, my survey results, analyzed in the context of the patterns of species detections as functions of survey effort, indicate the site is relatively rich in wildlife species. Up to 12 (26%) of the 47 species I detected were special-status species, and only 3 (6%) were non-native. In my experience, these percentages are unusually high for special-status species and low for non-native species, indicating the site maintains high ecological integrity. An ecological keystone species – California ground squirrel – occupies the site, thereby increasing the likelihoods of occurrence of species that rely on ground squirrels for forage or on their burrows for refugia. There is certainty that wildlife use the site, that ecological keystone species occur at and around the site, and that many other species of wildlife also use the site but have yet to be documented doing so. What is uncertain is which additional species also use the site but remain undocumented doing so. Additional surveys should be performed to better inform a revised DEIR.

With the presence of ground squirrels, burrowing owls might use the project site.

Burrowing owls sometimes reside in cavities other than burrows constructed by fossorial mammals, but in my experience, burrowing owls usually establish nest sites and winter refugia in one or more burrows of a burrow system constructed by burrowing owls (Smallwood et al. 2013, Smallwood and Morrison 2018). Burrowing owls and ground squirrels are mutualists, which means the presence of one species benefits the other. Burrowing owls and ground squirrels mutually alarm-call to alert all present of the approach of predators, and the calls by either of the species is understood by both species of whether the predator approaches by air or land and of the direction of approach. In 2019, I found through monitoring of multiple colonies that where burrowing owls and ground squirrels co-occurred, more squirrels survived through spring and summer, and more of the nesting pairs of burrowing owls succeeded and more of their chicks survived to fledge (Smallwood unpublished data). In my experience, finding ground squirrels is a reliable precursor to finding burrowing owls.

However, detecting burrowing owls residing with ground squirrels is an order of magnitude more difficult in winter as compared to spring and summer. Burrowing owls are much more visible in spring and summer because the male adult guards the nest from prominences. In winter, all burrowing owls residing in ground squirrel burrows remain within the burrows during daylight hours, emerging at night to forage. While surveying for burrowing owls in winter, I learned that one of the most effective strategies for detecting burrowing owls during winter surveys is to periodically stop walking along transects and turn to see owls changing burrow locations after I walked past them. But even with this trick, my estimate is that only 10% of available burrowing owls can be detected during winter surveys. And winter is when I happened to visit the project site. Further diminishing my likelihood of detecting burrowing owls at the site was my lack of access to the ground squirrel burrows to check for burrowing owl sign.

Given that ground squirrels occupy the project site, detection surveys for burrowing 1210
17 owls are warranted. The surveys should comply with the survey standards of CDFW (2012). These surveys should be completed to inform a revised DEIR.

Rincon (2018) offers no survey findings of wildlife on adjacent properties, such as the property to the south that is undergoing habitat restoration by The Nature Conservancy.

Neither Rincon (2018) nor the DEIR discusses the project’s potential impacts to a California Endangered species known to be nesting on The Nature Conservancy property immediately to the south of the project site (Zembal and Hoffman 2010). In fact, the savannah sparrows I saw on the project site might have been foraging members of the Belding’s subspecies, although it was also possible that they were wintering largebilled savannah sparrows. Regardless, the DEIR remains deficient for not discussing potential project impact to Belding’s savannah sparrows and to other special-status species reside just south of the project site.

Based on my review of publicly available data bases of species occurrences, I determined that 87 special-status species of wildlife have the potential to occur at the project site, including 85 species of vertebrate wildlife (Table 2). I would not expect many of these species to co-occur at the site at any given time, but rather at one time or another or periodically by season. With 12 special-status species documented at the site, 47 documented within about 1.5 miles, another 13 within several miles, and 11 more species within about 30 miles of the site, there is ample reason to expect significant impacts to special-status species of wildlife should the project go forward as proposed. These impacts would happen without any plan to mitigate them other than to begin construction outside the avian breeding season or after performing a preconstruction survey for nesting birds. The DEIR needs to be revised to appropriately characterize the current environmental setting as a baseline for impacts analysis.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Determination of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is not, in and of itself, an analysis of potential project impacts. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, or the whole of a species. In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, and almost none of which are analyzed in the DEIR.

HABITAT LOSS
The DEIR does not address the loss of wildlife that would result from habitat loss caused by the project. No mention is made of habitat fragmentation, nor of the project site role as stopover and staging opportunities for migratory wildlife. No mention is made of what happens to the existing habitat once the 5-year temporary use of the site ends.

Most likely, the gravel would remain, or the site would be proposed for another industrial use that covers the soils with impervious surface.

1211
18 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird (https://eBird.org), where “very close” indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within several miles, and “in region” indicates within 30 miles or so.

Common name Species name Status1
Data base records,
Site visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby (obscured)
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CE candidate Nearby (obscured) Redhead Aythya americana SSC3 Very close
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhyynchos SSC Very close Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis CFP Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL On site White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC On site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, WL, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP On site
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP On site
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BOP, BCC Very close Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrines nivosus FT Very close 1212
19 Common name Species name Status
1 Data base records,
Site visits
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus BCC, SSC Nearby
Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL Very close Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Very close
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC Very close
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Very close Heermann’s gull Larus heermannii BCC Very close
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC On site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL On site
California least tern Sternula antillarum FE, CE Very close Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans WL Very close
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Very close
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Very close
Xantus’s murrelet Synthliboramphus hypoleucus CT, BCC In region Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata WL In region
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sandhill crane Antigone canadensis tabida CT, CFP Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 On site
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC In region
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby 1213
20 Common name Species name Status1
Data base records,
Site visits
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 On site California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
Clark’s marsh wren Cistothorus palustris clarkae SSC2 Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica CT, SSC In region Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Very close
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Very close
Southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, SSC In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Very close Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Belding’s savannah sparrow 2 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE On site 2 Large-billed savannah sparrow 2 Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2 On site 2 Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG H In region
Townsend’s western big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC, WBWG H In range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG: M In range
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In region
1214
21 Common name Species name Status1
Data base records,
Site visits
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG H In region 1 Listed as FE = federal endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CE = California endangered, CT = California threatened, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFG Code 3511), SSC = California species of special concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey). 2 Uncertain of subspecies, but either resident Belding’s or wintering large-billed savannah sparrows. 1215
22 Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but also in permanent loss of productive capacity (Smallwood 2015). For example, two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and

35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. The environmental conditions of these two study sites differed from the project site by including woodland, but they exemplify the high productivity of avian habitat.

Assuming the nest density at the project site is half the densities of the two study sites I cited, 17.15 nests/acre multiplied against 33.7 acres would predict a loss of 578 bird nests. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9.

Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, then the project would prevent the production of 1,676 fledglings per year. After 100 years and assuming an average generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from the following formula: {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + ((2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation))}. In the case of this project, and given my stated assumptions, this formula predicts the project would deny California 190,720 birds over the next century due solely to loss of terrestrial habitat. This predicted loss of 1,907 birds/year would be substantial, and would qualify as a significant impact that has not been addressed in the DEIR.

The project would eliminate much of the remaining open-space habitat currently available to numerous special-status species, including western gull, merlin, loggerhead shrike and other species I detected at the project site and many others I would likely detect with an extended survey effort. The project would eliminate much of the remaining habitat in the area that is currently useful to many special-status species listed in Table 2, including burrowing owl. Winter migrants such as merlin would lose access to nearly 34 acres of forage that is critical to their ability to successfully breed come spring. Nearly 34 acres is a lot of habitat space that has been used for thousands of years by what are now designated as special-status species. Once the site is covered by gravel, the habitat values of the site would be lost, and the habitat value of the scrubland managed by The Nature Conservancy would be degraded. The DEIR should be revised to appropriately analyze habitat loss as a potential project impact to birds.

Artificial Light Impacts on Wildlife
The project would add 19 security lights around the site’s perimeter. The light from these lights would penetrate the scrubland south of the project site, illuminating surface areas normally traversed by nocturnal wildlife that rely on darkness for stealth.

Penetrating light would also generate stark light/shadow contrasts that can be confusing to wildlife. Artificial lighting causes a variety of substantial impacts on a variety of wildlife species (Rich and Longcore 2006), including interference with circadian rhythm, disruption of foraging activity, disruption of movement patterns, navigational interference and lethal attraction of flying birds, and altered development of eggs and juveniles/larvae. Added lighting could cause displacement or altered activity patterns of at least some species, resulting in habitat degradation and additional habitat loss. The DEIR needs to be revised to address this suite of potential project impacts. 1216
23 COLLISION MORTALITY ALONG FENCES
The DEIR makes no mention of, and thus provides no analysis of, bird-fence collision mortality along the proposed project’s 1,835-m of 6-foot-tall fence. Based on scientific fatality monitoring among California’s utility-scale solar energy projects, collision and entanglement mortality along security fences averaged 14.435 (95% CI: 10.880–20.339) birds/km/year (Smallwood 2020). Applying this rate to the proposed 1.835 km of fence would predict 26.5 bird fatalities per year (14.435 bird fatalities/km/year × 1.835 km of fence at the project site). Given that the fence would remain after the temporary vehicle storage at the site ends, this estimated collision and entanglement mortality would continue for as many years as the fence remains. Fencing kills wildlife (Photo 23) and it interferes with the movement of non-volant species, so it needs to be addressed in a revised DEIR.

Photo 23. A great-horned owl died after
becoming entangled on the razor wire
placed on top of this cyclone fence
surrounding a substation in Alameda
County. Photo by Joanne Mount.

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
The DEIR (page 5.4-25) asserts that “the probability that wildlife would utilize the project site or the immediate area for regional movement is unlikely given the urban nature of the project site and the surrounding vicinity.” But that is not what I saw at the project site. I witnessed a constant use of the site for wildlife movement. California gulls and western gulls flew over it all the time. The gulls did not merely fly over it, however. They used it to gain lift for long-distance glides. I saw gulls repeatedly arrive to the site, and then circle while ascending in the thermals generated by the natural soils of the site. I also witnessed many double-crested cormorants making used of the site for travel, as well as mallards, belted kingfishers, merlin and many other birds.

The DEIR focuses its analysis on wildlife movement corridors as the only issue that would determine whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the 1217
24 region. The DEIR adopts a CEQA standard of analysis that does not exist. The CEQA standard is whether a project will “Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors…” The primary phrase of the standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor or a linkage.

And anyhow, corridors are typically regarded in science as human-created landscape structures intended to reduce the effects of habitat fragmentation, and only infrequently as a channelization of wildlife movement caused by landscape structure (Smallwood 2015).

Wildlife movement in a region is often diffuse rather than channeled (Runge et al. 2014, Taylor et al. 2011) unless anthropogenic changes have forced channeling or targeting of “island” patches of habitat (Smallwood 2015). Wildlife movement must include stopover opportunities for birds and bats (Taylor et al. 2011), and staging habitat (Warnock 2010) during dispersal, migration or home range patrol. Based on what I saw of wildlife activity at the site and considering the site’s proximity to the coast, a stream channel and wetlands, and considering that the site is nearly an island of open space surrounded by human-altered landscape, many species of wildlife likely use the site of the proposed project for movement across the region. The project, with its fencing, gravel and parked cars would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, and would lengthen the distances that wildlife must travel before finding alternate stopover habitat. The project, therefore, would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

ROAD MORTALITY
The DEIR makes no mention of the project’s potential contributions to one of the most substantial anthropogenic sources of wildlife mortality, and that is wildlife-automobile collision mortality. With the proposed use of the site as an outdoor storage, the DEIR is grossly deficient for providing no analysis of traffic impacts to wildlife. The very purpose of the site is to store cars that would be driven one by one to and from the site, thereby endangering wildlife along the way as wildlife have to cross roads for various reasons (Photos 24-26). Species at risk would be those listed in Table 2 as well as many other special-status species that occur along roads that would be used in support of the project as far from the site as cars would travel to and from the site. The DEIR makes no mention of this, nor does it provide an analysis of wildlife-automobile collision mortality. However, as will be described, a basis for predicting wildlife mortality can be found in the prediction of annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America, traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
1218
25 Photo 24. A Gambel’s quail
dashes across a road on 3 April
2021. Such road crossings are
usually successful, but too often
prove fatal to the animal. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 25. A mourning dove killed
by vehicle traffic on a California
road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood,
21 June 2020.

Photo 26. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors were similar to those for carcass persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011).

Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a 1219
26 wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al. 2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic on roads within the City of Oxnard and County of Ventura would similarly result in intense local impacts on wildlife.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The DEIR offers no clear prediction of project-generated VMT, but it does provide the bases for calculating most of it. Assuming the average employee commute would be 20 miles, the project would add 376,790 annual VMT (1.65 miles per trip x 262 trips per day x 365 = 157,790 VMT for car transport and shuttle + 20 miles per trip x 30 trips per day x 365 = 219,000 VMT for employee commute). This would be a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating. But it can also serve as a basis for predicting impacts to wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although despite the nearness of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study to the project site, it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County.

Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species).

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the annual VMT predicted above, I predict the project would cause 206 wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 5 years would accumulate 1,030 wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts.

Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The DEIR should be revised to include 1220
27 an appropriate analysis of traffic-caused road mortality as a potential project impact to wildlife.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The DEIR adopts a flawed approach to analysis of cumulative impacts. It implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation. On page

5.4-29, it explains that “potential impacts from the proposed project and other related projects would be site-specific, and evaluations of potential impacts would be conducted on a project-by-project basis, and mitigation would be included to address any impacts.” If cumulative impacts were merely residual impacts of incomplete mitigation, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. The DEIR’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis.

Given that North America has lost nearly a third of its birds over the past half century (Rosenberg et al. 2019), an appropriate cumulative effects analysis is warranted. The DEIR needs to be revised so that it includes a cumulative effects analysis that meets the standards of CEQA. It should consider the cumulative loss of habitat by extending the types of calculation I made above (under the subtitle, Habitat Loss) to the cumulative areas of habitat at issue within the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis.

The analysis should extend the calculations I used above to predict wildlife mortality based on the cumulative VMT within the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis. It should also consider the cumulative effects of additional fencing that could interfere with wildlife movement and cause collision and entanglement mortality. To do this, the DEIR ought to apply the same scientifically-founded rate of bird fatalities/km of fence that I used above, but this time for all the fencing that occurs or is anticipated to occur within the geographic scope of the cumulative impacts analysis. These quantitative approaches to cumulative effects analysis are feasible, and need only be informed by estimates of habitat loss, VMT and length of fencing in the study area.

MITIGATION
The DEIR proposes construction timing and preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys to avoid impacts to breeding birds (MM BIO-1). Whereas I agree that preconstruction surveys would be appropriate, it must be understood by decision-makers and the public that such surveys typically detect small fractions of the animals targeted. Nesting birds are highly adept at concealment to avoid predation. It is very difficult to find hummingbird nests. Grassland birds such as western meadowlark establish nest sites under grass, and these nests are so well-hidden that they are only detected when a parent bird flushes from the nest as a biologist steps right next to it. Burrowing owls can misdirect biologists by perching at sites well away from their nests and otherwise waiting for the observer to leave before returning to the nest. Similarly, loggerhead shrikes will fly to various locations other than the nest site while under observation (Smallwood and Smallwood 2021). With so many trees and shrubs around the site and so many acres of grassland on the site, the notion that more than a few animals would 1221
28 be detected would be fantasy. Furthermore, preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys ultimately fail to prevent the impacts of habitat loss, resulting in the loss of productive capacity of the site.

Preconstruction surveys should not be performed without first having performed detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are no substitute for detection surveys.

Species detection surveys are needed to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and (4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation.

Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for most special-status species. Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts. To detect nest sites, long hours of observation are needed by qualified behavioral ecologists to note the patterns and destinations of delivery of nest material and food items. Long hours are needed to note where birds are defending nest territories. And long hours are needed to allow for birds to relax their concern over the presence of the observers, and to hence exhibit behaviors other than those intended to distract or mislead the observers. Preconstruction surveys simply do not provide sufficient time for these patterns to be realized.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. An equal area of open space should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible. The impacts of artificial lighting and interference with wildlife movement by the security fence should be minimized by reducing the number of lights, directing more of the lighting inward to the project, and using fencing that increases opacity and minimizes the risk of entanglement. The fence should also include gaps to enable non-volant wildlife to pass through.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles.

Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
1222
29 REFERENCES CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.

City of Oxnard. 2021. Port Of Hueneme – Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Facility Project. SCH No. 2020069039. Oxnard, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Krausman, P. R. 2016. Another Plea for Standard Terminology. Journal of Wildlife Management 80:1143–1144. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21121
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Morrison, M. L., B. G. Marcot, and R. W. Mannan. 1998. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships:

Concepts and Applications. 2nd edition. University of Wisconsin Press Madison, WI.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How Long Do the Dead Survive on the Road? Carcass Persistence Probability and Implications for Road-Kill Monitoring Surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
1223
30 Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Rincon. 2018. Biological Resources Inventory, 34-acre project site, City of Oxnard, Ventura County, California. Report to Giles Pettifor, Environmental Manager, Oxnard Harbor District, Port Hueneme, California.

Rich, C., and T. Longcore. 2006. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting.

Island Press, Covelo, California.

Rincon. 2020. Follow-up biological services for a 34 acre lot located in Oxnard for the Oxnard Harbor District. Report to Giles Pettifor, Environmental Manager, Oxnard Harbor District, Port Hueneme, California.

Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.

Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795.

Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.

Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.

Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.

Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
1224
31 Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

Zembal, and Hoffman. 2010. A survey of the Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) in California 2010. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife Program Report No. 2010-10. Sacramento, California.

Photo 27. A pair of house finches on the south side of the project site, 27 January 2022.

Photo 28. A Say’s
phoebe found some
food on the project
site, 27 January
2022.
1225
ATTACHMENT 7
1226
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Jay Dobrowalski
City of Oxnard
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030 18 October 2022
RE: Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage
Dear Mr. Dobrowalski,
I write to reply to the Final Environmental Impact Report’s (FEIR’s) responses to my 9 February 2022 comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in support of a proposed temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility on 33.7 acres of open space at the southeast corner of Hueneme Road and Perkins Road.

The FEIR assigns comment numbers throughout my letter, to which responses are likewise numbered. I disagree with the splitting of certain paragraphs into separate comments, but this splitting is unimportant to me. Thus, I replied according to the numbering the FEIR assigns to my comments. What is important, however, is that the responses characterized many of the numbered comments as statements or as introductions to comments to follow. In all of these instances, the FEIR concludes that no further response is required. In other words, many of my comments, which were acknowledged as such by the FEIR’s numbered labels, were then disqualified as comments in order to avoid having to respond to them. Except for two or three introductory paragraphs, which the FEIR should not have assigned comment numbers, the paragraphs I wrote were comments on the DEIR, and as comments, they merited serious responses. To many of my comments, City of Oxnard fails to provide good-faith, reasoned analyses in their responses.

My replies mostly follow the numbered responses in the order they appear in the FEIR. I consolidated a few of those that the FEIR address redundantly.

Response 206-94: “The project site is not topographically diverse and can be characterized as flat. ... the site is regularly disturbed through tilling and mowing activities... As a result, the reconnaissance-level surveys conducted by Rincon in the spring of 2018 and fall of 2020 were general in nature.” And, “the site visit and conditions suggested that no special-status plant species were expected due to the disturbed nature of the site, high degree of urbanization in the vicinity of the project site and project site’s soil profile”
Reply: In other words, a determination was made in advance that the site would provide no biological value. A grossly inadequate survey effort was then directed to wildlife at the project site, thereby confirming the pre-determination that a flat, oftendisturbed site does not support wildlife. My survey demonstrates otherwise. I did not 1227
2 survey for very long, as I was only there during one evening and the following cold-andwindy early morning. Despite my brief time there and the less-than-ideal conditions, I detected 47 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 12 with special status.

The number of species I saw at the project site was about twice the number I usually detect during reconnaissance-level surveys. Furthermore, that 26% of the species I detected were special-status species was unusually high in my experience. For greater context, I updated Figure 1 from my comment letter so that it includes the 95% confidence interval based on reconnaissance surveys that my daughter and I (my daughter works for me) have completed at 15 other proposed project sites in the area between Ventura and Burbank (Figure 1). Note that the data and model predictions representative of the project site exceed the upper bound of the 95% CI. In other words, the project site supports more species of wildlife than do most other project sites I have surveyed in the area.

Figure 1. Actual and
predicted relationships
between the number of
vertebrate wildlife species
detected and the elapsed
survey time based on my
visual-scan surveys on 27-
28 January 2022. This
version of the Figure also
includes 95% confidence
intervals (CI) based on
reconnaissance surveys
my daughter and I
completed at 15 other sites
between Ventura and
Burbank.

Response 206-94: “Reconnaissance surveys document existing conditions and assess the habitat suitability for special-status species, which informs whether or not further surveys are necessary. The survey’s site visits were timed for performing a general reconnaissance survey, which can be performed any time of the year.” 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Actual species count, 27th
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 53.8
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 28.1
Actual species count, 28th
95% CI, surveys at 15
nearby sites, 2018-2022
1228
3 Reply: According to the response, the surveys were timed to achieve the standard of general reconnaissance surveys being completed at any time of year; in other words, the survey timing met no standard at all. In fact, no standard for the timing of general reconnaissance surveys exists as they apply to wildlife, just as no protocol or guidance exists for general reconnaissance surveys directed to wildlife. The scientific literature is silent on general reconnaissance surveys, because such surveys have been invented by the environmental consulting industry and lack scientific vetting. These surveys have been contrived to achieve objectives that are scientifically indefensible. Below I explain why these surveys are inappropriate to the purpose that City of Oxnard applies them.

To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, it helps for both the analysis and the public to be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.

There are three types of survey for wildlife at a project site that are typical of CEQA review. One is known as a species-specific detection survey, which follows a methodological protocol formulated by experts on the species. The protocol balances cost against a reasonable likelihood of detection should the species be present. If the protocol is followed, but the species is not detected, then the negative outcome of the detection survey can serve as support for an absence determination, i.e., the species at issue can be determined absent from the site for however long the protocol specifies. It is therefore important that the details of the detection survey be reported so that the reader can compare these details to the minimum standards of the detection survey protocol. In this case, no detection surveys were completed for any special-status species.

Two other types of survey for wildlife at proposed project sites are known as reconnaissance survey, otherwise known as general survey, and habitat assessment. The typical objective of reconnaissance survey is to inventory the species that compose the wildlife community, whereas that of habitat assessment is to assign occurrence likelihoods to special-status species based on documented associations between each species and environmental settings. Unlike the carefully formulated protocols of detection surveys, reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments lack formal standards of implementation and interpretation. The outcome of a 5-minute reconnaissance survey should not be afforded the same credibility as that of a 5-hour reconnaissance survey, but no guidance is available on how long a reconnaissance survey should last or what its findings should mean. It is therefore very important that the methodological details of reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments be reported. It is just as important that the standards of interpretation be reported, along with sources of uncertainty and bias.

Sources of potential uncertainty and bias abound in reconnaissance surveys for the purpose of wildlife species inventory. Biologists vary in their skill at detecting wildlife species, and all are imperfect observers. After all, some species are large, loud, colorful 1229
4 or abundant, and can readily be seen during diurnal surveys, whereas others are tiny, quiet, cryptic or rare, or are detectable only by night or by trapping or use of remotesensing technology. In my experience, some species typically do not reveal themselves until I have been on the survey station for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or for hours. The inventory will be the product of the amount of survey time and the range of survey methods invested. As examples, because nocturnal surveys and trapping with live bait are rarely implemented as part of reconnaissance surveys, bats and shrews rarely find their places on species inventories at proposed project sites. Membership on an inventory can also carry different meanings based on how each species occurs at the site.

Whereas some species are resident year-round, others can be seasonal or ephemeral in their occurrences at a site. Should a species be included on an inventory depends on the analyst’s standard of what counts as presence, but that standard should be reported so that the public can decide whether to agree with it. (The DEIR reports no such standard.) In short, reconnaissance survey can only sample the true suite of wildlife species of a site, and most often, the sample will be biased against the rare, sensitive and threatened or endangered species that CEQA is most concerned about.

Reconnaissance surveys occasionally reveal the presence of special-status species, sometimes due to the skill of the observer but often due to luck of survey timing. What these surveys cannot reveal is the absences of any species whose geographic ranges overlap the site and whose habitat associations at all resemble conditions of the site.

And it is habitat associations that consulting biologists often rely upon to determine likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. Unfortunately, habitat associations often poorly comport with the habitat concept, which is that habitat is that part of the environment that is used by a species (Hall et al. 1997), and which is described by scientists through measurement (Smallwood 2002). Habitat associations defined by consulting biologists typically lack foundation in actual measurements of habitat use, and are therefore speculative and prone to error. One source of error is to map vegetation complexes as habitat types, to which consulting biologists assign species by association without concern for the unrealistically hard boundaries that divide the mapped habitat types (see Figure 2 of Rincon 2018). Another source of error is to pigeon-hole species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which can then be said not to exist on the project site (for examples, see wildlife habitat descriptions in Appendix FA Follow-Up Biological Resources Inventory – 2022). A third source of error is to assign functions to habitat for the purpose of dividing habitat into unrealistic functional parts, such as between breeding habitat versus foraging habitat (for examples, see wildlife habitat descriptions in Appendix FA Follow-Up Biological Resources Inventory – 2022). Primacy is assigned to breeding habitat, which often can be said not to exist on the project site. In reality, all parts of an animal’s habitat are essential to breeding success, regardless of where breeding opportunities occur. 1 1 Animals unable to find sufficient forage, refugia, or travel opportunities are just as unable to reproduce as those unable to find sufficient nest-site opportunities. Per the precautionary principle of risk analysis and consistent with the habitat concept, CEQA review should be based on the broadest of available habitat characterizations, which should be interpreted on the whole rather than contrived functional parts. Any detections of a species on or over a site, regardless of time of year, should be interpreted as that species’ use of habitat, any part of which is critical to breeding success. 1230
5 Given the true cost of species inventory, the temptation to shortcut the analysis of occurrence likelihoods is understandable. In the spirit and intent of CEQA, a reasonably feasible sampling of the species inventory should be the first objective of reconnaissance surveys. Several approaches to sound interpretation of the sampled inventory are defensible. One is to commit to a survey effort that results in the detection of a sufficient number of species to accurately estimate the number of species yet to be detected, which is the approach I applied in my comment letter. A second approach is to honestly report the uncertainties and biases of the characterizations of the species inventory and of the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. In the third approach, the analyst can assume species are present until suitable evidence is acquired in support of an absence determination. This last approach would be consistent with the precautionary principle of risk analysis directed toward rare and precious resources (National Research Council 1986) and with the tenets of protocol-level detection surveys formulated by experts on each special-status species. Regardless of the approach, most important is to refrain from determining species are absent before sufficient survey has been completed, and to refrain from asserting certainty in the species inventory when that certainty is unjustified.

Returning to the response’s point that reconnaissance surveys can be performed any time of the year, I concur. One can perform a reconnaissance survey any time of year or any time of day. I have completed hundreds of wildlife surveys in all seasons of the year and all times of day and night. But I also quantify the effects of survey timing, because survey timing bears strongly on survey findings. The scientific literature is full of seasonal patterns of occurrence and abundance of many wildlife species. Recently I tested for time-of-day effects on the outcomes of reconnaissance-level surveys. To compare the data between surveys at two sites, I normalized the number of species detected as a proportion of the maximum number detected across all 5 surveys per site.

Figure 2 shows a mirrored relationship between number of species detected and time of day when each 2-hour visual-scan survey began. Temperature could explain some of the variation in survey outcomes, but the effect of time of day was strongest and appears robust. Although one can perform reconnaissance surveys at any time of year and any time of day, one needs to interpret the survey outcomes in light of seasonal and time-ofday patterns of species detection likelihood.

Response 206-97: “...site conditions are unlikely to support sustained ground squirrel populations or associated burrowing owl populations.”
Reply: This response does not comport with the ground squirrels I saw and photographed in the middle of the project site (see Photo 4 of my comment letter).

Ground squirrels inhabit burrow complexes at the rate of 1.89 adults per burrow complex on average (Smallwood unpublished data), and burrow complexes support many generations over long periods of time. That ground squirrels occur in the middle of the project site is evidence of a sustained ground squirrel population despite disturbances to the site.
1231
6 Figure 2. Numbers of
species detected as
proportion of the
maximum number
detected among the 5
surveys per project site,
and as a function of start
time during the day. The
red symbols represent
Greentree and the blue
symbols represent the
comparison project site.

Response 206-97: “As described in the updated assessment, burrowing owls are only known to winter in the Oxnard Plains.”
Reply: As I commented in my 9 February comment letter, records of burrowing owl occurrence are “very close” to the project site. The blue teardrop symbols in Figure 3 represent locations of 29 burrowing owl occurrence records within only 1 mile of the site. That the records are winter occurrences qualifies them as no less important to burrowing owl nest success than had they represented nest sites. Burrowing owls that cannot acquire sufficient forage over winter, or cannot survive the winter, cannot successfully breed.

Burrowing owls naturally shift locations between breeding and non-breeding seasons. I studied the phenomenon over one full year of repeat surveys across a large study area in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (Smallwood et al. 2013), where I found that the relocation of burrowing owls from nesting colonies to over-wintering sites was densitydependent (Figure 4). The negative density-dependent relationship suggest that burrowing owls need to rest their prey-base in breeding areas, or they need to find more abundant prey where they did not breed, or they need to escape predator or parasite loads, or all of the above. Whatever, the reason, winter sites are of high importance to burrowing owls, and should not be minimalized as they are in the FEIR.

Hour of day
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

0.4 0.5

0.6 0.7

0.8 0.9

1.0 Species as proportion of
max number counted
1232
7 Figure 3. eBird
occurrence records of
burrowing owl within 1
mile of the project site.

The blue teardrop
symbols are where 29 sightings have been
reported.

Figure 4. Among 46
sampling plots across a
167-km
2 study area in the
Altamont Pass,
burrowing owl density in
winter was a negative
function of density in the
breeding season,
meaning that burrowing
owls needed to leave
breeding-season
locations to winter where
fewer burrowing owls
nested in spring. -20 -15 -10-505
10 15
20 Y = 2.889 – 0.428X r2 = 0.27, SE = 6.07, P = 0.0001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Burrowing owls/km
2 in spring 2011
Change in burrowing owls/km2 from
spring 2011 to following winter
1233
8 Response 206-97: “the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (August 2022) and eBird.org (August 2022) occurrences suggest that burrowing owls utilize Ormond Beach and the game preserve, areas with little disturbance and higher quality habitat for this species.”
Reply: The CNDDB and eBird records provide no such evidence. Twelve of the eBird records were at the beach, where disturbance is a defining feature of the beach. Sixteen of the eBird records were located along Edison Drive, bordered on both sides by agricultural fields – fields mostly used for sod production. Photos of the owls depict bare ground and packed earth indicative of disturbance. The conditions where these burrowing owls were reported mirror conditions I myself have many times found and recorded burrowing owls. Burrowing owls are often characterized as disturbanceadapted species.

Furthermore, the CNDDB and eBird records are based on locations where volunteer reporters of the records happened to visit. They do not represent any sort of scientific survey of the project area. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” 2 The conclusion drawn in Response 206-97 cannot be supported by species occurrence databases, and therefore is purely speculative. Without completion of detection surveys that meet the standards of CDFW (2012), the FEIR cannot defend a conclusion of absence nor even of low likelihood of occurrence.

Response 206-97: “Although the site may support a small temporary population of insects and small rodents in between disturbance activities, the site is unlikely to support sustained and abundant prey populations due to the disturbances. In addition, prey resources are likely more abundant in the adjacent open space areas which would likely attract any burrowing owl traversing across the region.” Reply: The response is speculative; it is unsupported by evidence. The site supports ground squirrels, which are not small mammals that come and go between disturbances.

Considering that ground squirrels persist through disturbances of the site, it is reasonable to conclude that many other species of wildlife, include arthropod populations, also persist through disturbances.

Response 206-97: “The preconstruction wildlife survey would similarly be sufficient to document any wintering burrowing owls or California horned lark, should they occur on-site.”
Reply: The response is incorrect. As I commented in my 9 February 2022 letter, wintering burrowing owls are difficult to detect. At minimum, the surveys would need to 2 State of California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, CNDDB Data Use Guidelines, p. 12. Available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27285&inline. 1234
9 achieve the standards of CDFW (2012), but more realistically, the surveys carry about a 10% chance of detection of wintering burrowing owls. I will add that horned larks can also be missed during preconstruction surveys.

Response 206-105: “Given the temporary use of the site for outdoor vehicle storage for a maximum of 5 years and that the proposed project does not include permanent structures, the proposed project does not preclude future non-industrial uses.” Reply: After 5 years of cover by gravel and cars, the soils would be dead, meaning the living constituents of soil would be dead. All animal burrow would be destroyed. The biologically productive capacity of the site would be severely depleted.

Response 206-107: “...no special-status species are expected to be present on site.” Reply: Special-status species are already present on site, as documented in my comment letter. On and over the site I observed Vaux’s swift, California gull, western gull, double-crested cormorant, turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, merlin, and either Belding’s or Large-billed savannah sparrow. Just off site I observed Allen’s hummingbird, northern harrier, and loggerhead shrike. But these are not the only special-status species occurring at and next to the site (most likely, those I saw next to the site also use the project site – I just did not see them do so while I was there).

Using an analytical bridge to a large research effort I completed in Northern California, I predicted in my comment letter that over the course of a year or longer, repeated visualcan surveys would eventually detect at least 158 species of vertebrate wildlife. Assuming my ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold with through the detections of all 158 species predicted by my analytical bridge between my survey outcome and the larger research effort in Northern California, then continued surveys would eventually detect 41 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Response 206-110 and Response 206-313: “The project proposes to establish 20- foot tall security lighting around the perimeter of the site. The placement of the lights is intended to minimize lighting impacts to the natural habitat south of the project site.” Reply: Even so placed, the security lighting would add light pollution to the protected habitat area to the south. If the project goes forward, minimization of impacts should be implemented, but as I commented in my letter of 9 February 2022, I recommend reducing the number of lights. Compensatory mitigation would be warranted for the impacts of artificial lighting that could not be avoided despite minimization measures.

Response 206-111 and Response 206-314: The response opines that landscaping along the fence would prevent bird-fence collision and entanglement mortality.

Reply: The response provides no evidence that landscaping would accomplish the impact minimization it asserts. I am not aware of any evidence that would support the FEIR’s response. In fact, I do not see any reason why landscaping along the fence would not increase bird-fence collision and entanglement mortality. While recently visiting a proposed project site not far from this one, my daughter came upon yet another 1235
10 collision/entanglement victim (Photo 1). My prediction remains. Based on empirical evidence from fatality monitoring along fences, I predict 26.5 (95% CI: 20–37) bird fatalities per year. Adult birds killed on the fence could also leave behind chicks on the nest, which would be at greater risk of dying on the nest. As the FEIR stands, these fatalities would not be mitigated, and in my opinion, they would qualify as a significant impact to birds.

Photo 1. Fledgling house
finch that fatally collided
with a perimeter security
fence in Oxnard,
California, 26 June 2022.

Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.

Response 206-112: “During this temporary project, the project site will not offer any foraging habitat except for the perimeter vegetation, and it will be unlikely that wildlife would utilize the interior of the site. The probability that wildlife would utilize the project site or the immediate area is unlikely given the urban nature of the project site and the surrounding vicinity.”
Reply: Even with cars and gravel covering what was once productive soil, wildlife would use the site, just not in all the same ways nor at the same level. The airspace over the site composes part of the aerosphere (Kunz et al. 2008). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is habitat (Kunz et al. 2008). Birds would continue to fly over the site, and some would perch on security lights, the security fence, on the office structure, and on cars.
1236
11 Response 206-112: “The project includes fencing around the perimeter of the site and fencing will function to redirect birds such as raptors to fly higher if they are flying near the road.”
Reply: Again, demonstrating the hazard of speculation, the response mischaracterizes how birds react to fences and other structures when passing over them. I have long studied this phenomenon, including how birds react to powerlines, wind turbines and fences. Birds typically flap hard to ascend high enough to pass over the barrier, and then once cleared, immediately drop in altitude on the other side of the barrier (Photo 2). (I have many photos of this behavior, but Photo 2 was the easiest to find and present.) This behavior contributes to how birds often collide with auto traffic. After clearing a structure such as powerlines, a fence, or even a large shipping truck, birds temporarily lose some flight control and have difficulty avoiding secondary obstacles.

Photo 2. White-faced ibises flap hard to ascend to avoid colliding with distribution lines before descending after having cleared the lines. Photos by Shawn Smallwood.

Response 206-114: In response to the issue raised about the DEIR’s flawed analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement, the FEIR writes “Please refer to response in comment 206-111. Also, as discussed on page 5.10-12 of the Draft EIR, through implementation of Standard Conditions SC HYD-1 through SC HYD-4, the project would be required to adhere to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requirements which is consistent with the Clean Water Act. In addition, as stated on page 5.10-17 of the Draft EIR, the project would adhere to the NPDES requirements for the Construction General Permit and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program that includes required best management practices (BMPs) and good housekeeping practices, for the protection of the adjacent wetlands.” Reply: Response 206-111 bears only on the security fence allowing small mammals to pass through gaps left in the fence, but otherwise has not bearing on the issue. The remainder of the response, which refers to various permits the project applicant would obtain regarding pollution discharge and construction, has no bearing on the issue of 1237
12 wildlife movement. It would seem the preparers of the FEIR put this part of the response in the wrong place.

Response 206-120: “The project will have a negligible effect on adjacent wetlands due to the temporary nature of the project...”
Reply: I suggest revising the EIR to more convincingly assure that the project would be temporary. The surest way to assure of the temporary nature of the project is to add a mitigation measure to restore the soils of the site to full productive capacity, including the capacity to support native vegetation, fossorial mammal burrows and species of wildlife appropriate to the area.

Response 206-285: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was a comment. And my comment posed implications for the accuracy of the DEIR’s characterization of the project’s environmental setting. Only 3 person-hours of reconnaissance-level survey were committed to the project site, during which time only 7 species of vertebrate wildlife were reportedly detected. I detected 6.7 times the number of species at 3.5 times the number of species per hour than did Rincon (2018). My comment noted that I consider my own survey effort as merely a starting point toward characterizing the environmental setting, which means that Rincon’s (2018) survey effort had yet to reach any sort of starting point. Of the 158 species of vertebrate wildlife my comment letter predicts as a minimum number of species using the project site, Rincon (2018) detected 4.4%. From this level of sampling of the species inventory, the EIR is incapable of accurately characterizing the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting.

Response 206-286: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was for the need to appropriately interpret reconnaissance survey results. Rincon (2018) and then the DEIR treat the Rincon (2018) survey results as if they were determinant regarding the likelihoods of occurrence of many species of wildlife. For example, Response 206-306 includes the assertion, “Reconnaissance surveys documented existing conditions and assessed the habitat suitability for specialstatus species.” The surveys did not accomplish either of these outcomes. Seeing only 7 wildlife species did not document existing conditions. The results of the Rincon (2018) surveys are treated as if they were protocol-level detection surveys, which they were not.

The DEIR is misleading in its interpretation of Rincon’s (2018) survey results.

Response 206-288: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was an analysis, not a statement. My analysis led to a predicted number of species of vertebrate wildlife likely to use the site over the long-term – much longer than the very brief surveys completed by both Rincon (2018) and myself. The DEIR presents no similar analysis, which leaves the reader with the false impression that the 7 species seen by Rincon (2018) were all the species to be seen on the project site.
1238
13 Response 206-289: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was an analysis, not a statement. This analysis goes to the probability of detection of special-status species, which the DEIR does not address. A brief survey is unlikely to detect many of the special-status species that use a particular site, but an empirical foundation is available to calculate the probability of detection of a special-status species based on a survey outcome. My comment provided an example that was directed toward listed species including California Fully Protected species.

Since my comment letter, I updated my analysis based on a larger data set. My larger data set predicts an 80% probability of detecting a listed species at the project site based on my survey effort, but only a 5% probability of doing so based on the survey effort of Rincon (2018). If the savannah sparrows I saw on site were Belding’s savannah sparrows, then I beat the odds. It probably would have taken many surveys by Rincon (2018) to detect a listed species, due to their relatively unproductive survey, but the point of my comment is that Rincon’s failure to detect a listed species is likely more of a reflection of their insufficient survey effort than it is of wildlife species occurrences.

Figure 5. Probability of
detecting ≥1 Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered
Species of wildlife listed under
California or federal Endangered
Species Acts, based on survey
outcomes logit-regressed on the
number of wildlife species I
detected during 199 site visits in
California. The dashed vertical
line represents the number of
species detected by Rincon and
the solid vertical line represents
the number I detected.

Response 206-291: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement.” Reply: My comment was an analysis, not a statement. Henceforth, I will not reply to responses that mischaracterize my comments as statements.

Response 206-292: “According to the most recent CDFW Special Animal’s List (July 2022), the red-tailed hawk is not designated as a special-status species, and doublecrested cormorants are a Watch List species for nesting colonies.” 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0.0 0.2

0.4 0.6

0.8 1.0
Number of species detected
Probability of detecting Fully Protected,
Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species
Hosmer Lemeshow =3.48, P = 0.90
95% CI
199 sites
1239
14 Reply: The response warrants a review of which species need to be considered as special-status species. §15380 of the CEQA Guidelines defines special-status species as Endangered, Rare, or Threatened, and it further defines each of these terms. Rare is defined as “(A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act.” Thus, rare species need not be listed species.

Importantly, CEQA Guideline 15125(c) provides that in describing the environmental setting “special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to the region and would be affected by the project.” The California Resources Agency’s Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA includes Appendix G, which requires that the proposed project be evaluated for whether it may have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife in turn defines a Species of Special Concern to be a species that:
• is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role;
• is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; • is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions (not reversed) that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status;
• has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status.

The species I identified as special-status species are consistent with how CEQA defines special-status species.

The meanings of CEQA’s defining terms for a species’ special status differ, but their differences also broaden the suite of species that CEQA intends should be considered as special-status species. The meanings of the terms Rare and Sensitive also often underly the inclusions of species on special-status species lists compiled by resource agencies.

Rareness can apply to species that have been diminished in abundance or geographic extent, or it can apply to species that are naturally scarce owing to their position at the top of the food-chain or to some other ecological factor. Rareness can also apply to species that are endemic to a region, even though such species can be abundant within their limited geographic range, e.g., yellow-billed magpie and Nuttall’s woodpecker.

Sensitive can apply to species that respond more adversely than other species to changes 1240
15 to their environment, often due to susceptibility to pollutants or pathogens or to the loss or degradation of a narrow portion of the environment on which the species relied. For example, burrowing owls often but not always depend on ground squirrels for the squirrels’ provisions of burrows as nest sites and for their mutual predator-alarm calling. Therefore, burrowing owls are sensitive to human changes to the environment that diminish ground squirrels.

The CEQA definition is consistent with how I identified special-status species in Table 2 of my comment letter. I rely on the status assigned each species in California’s Special Animal List (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database.

November 2021. Special Animals List. Periodic publication) – a list that is updated annually and often relied upon for CEQA reviews. The Special Animals List compiles designations of special status to species from various agencies and for various reasons.

According to policy of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding species of special concern (SSC) (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation /SSC#394871319- how-are-sscs-addressed-under-the-california-environmental-quality-act), “SSCs should be considered during the environmental review process. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177) requires State agencies, local governments, and special districts to evaluate and disclose impacts from "projects" in the State. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines clearly indicates that species of special concern should be included in an analysis of project impacts if they can be shown to meet the criteria of sensitivity outlined therein. Sections 15063 and 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines, which address how an impact is identified as significant, are particularly relevant to SSCs. Project-level impacts to listed (rare, threatened, or endangered species) species are generally considered significant thus requiring lead agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Report to fully analyze and evaluate the impacts. In assigning "impact significance" to populations of nonlisted species, analysts usually consider factors such as population-level effects, proportion of the taxon's range affected by a project, regional effects, and impacts to habitat features.”
The US Fish and Wildlife Service circulates a list of Birds of Conservation Concern. This list is of “all migratory nongame birds that without additional conservation action are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.” Factors contributing to this list are “population abundance and trends, threats on breeding and nonbreeding grounds, and size of breeding and nonbreeding ranges.” I rely on this list.

Raptors are protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, otherwise known as the Birds of Prey Code. Raptors are protected by this Code because raptors are top predators wherever they live. Their positions in the food chain naturally require that they are rare, which is one of the key conditions – and one of the key words – that meets the CEQA definition of special-status species. Species that are naturally rare, such as species of raptor, are more likely identified as special-status species, e.g., California condor, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, burrowing owl, spotted owl, whereas fewer of the naturally abundant species are so identified, such as songbirds. I consider raptors protected by CFG Code 3503.5 to be special-status species. 1241
16 Some species of bat are listed or designated as California Species of Special Concern, but others are assigned conservation priority rankings the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG), which California Department of Fish and Wildlife relies upon and which CDFW tracks in its list of California’ special animals. I consider bats with WBWG conservation priority rankings of medium and high to be special-status species.

And then there are the bird species assigned to the Taxa to Watch List in California.

These assignments are again assignments of special status; otherwise, there would be no point to assigning them to the Taxa to Watch List. Specifically, they are species that were earlier assigned special concern, but which did not rank as high as those species currently on the list of Species of Special Concern (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

Nevertheless, CDFW commissioned the development of this list, and would not have done so without concern for the rarity and sensitivity of the species listed. I rely on this list.

For the reasons summarized above, the FEIR response relies on a flawed premise for its scope of analysis of potential impacts to biological resources, and for its accusation that I defined special status too broadly.

Response 206-294 and Response 206-295: “An updated biological assessment considering special-status species potential to occur was performed and is provided as Appendix FA to the Final EIR. This updated assessment expanded the database review for the USGS quadrangles including the project site and surrounding eight quadrangles (“nine-quad search”).”
Reply: Appendix FA of the FEIR screens out species from further consideration if CNDDB occurrence records do not exist within USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles including and adjacent to the site. By relying on CNDDB records to determine species’ absences, the DEIR misapplies CNDDB. CNDDB was not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community.

Response 206-296: “An updated biological assessment considering species potential to occur was performed and is provided as Appendix FA to the Final EIR.” Reply: The response does not address my comment, which was about the need to complete an adequate survey effort. My comment was not suggesting more database review and speculation about species occurrence likelihoods, but it instead suggested more visits to the project site to actually survey for wildlife.

Response 206-300: “The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow.”
Reply: My comment was not an introduction to comments that followed. It was a stand-alone comment, pointing out that based on years of experience studying 1242
17 burrowing owls, the occurrence of ground squirrels is a good precursor to finding burrowing owls. The response does not address my comment.

Response 206-301: “The reconnaissance-level surveys conducted by Rincon were general in nature. Reconnaissance surveys document existing conditions and assess the habitat suitability for special-status species, which informs whether or not further surveys are necessary.”
Reply: With ground squirrels on the project site, protocol-level detection surveys are warranted. Presence of ground squirrels is just the sort of finding that typically prompts implementation of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines. However, I am the one who found and reported ground squirrels on the project site. Rincon (2018) did not report having detected ground squirrels, and the DEIR makes no mention of ground squirrels occurring on site. In other words, the reconnaissance surveys missed an easily detectable species, which was also an ecological keystone species, the presence of which typically prompts implementation of the burrowing owl survey guidelines. This outcome goes to show that the premise of Response 206-301 is grossly flawed. The general reconnaissance survey failed to accurately assess the site’s habitat potential for burrowing owls.

Response 206-301: “Burrowing owls are opportunistic feeders and primarily feed on insects (e.g., grasshoppers, crickets, moths, beetles) and small mammals; and pursue other prey as opportunities arise.” And “the site is unlikely to support sustained and abundant prey populations due to the disturbances. ... Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to significant affect burrowing own [sic] foraging habitat or significantly affect prey populations.”
Reply: This characterization of foraging behavior is inaccurate. I have studied burrowing owl foraging behavior for years, during both day and night. At night, burrowing owls actively forage at specific locations for specific types of animals.

Burrowing owls will also prey on species as opportunities arise, but their principal foraging strategy is targeted, active hovering over specific locations. They often travel 400 m and farther from their burrows to forage.

Response 206-302: “The comment states that Rincon (2018) per the Draft EIR offers no survey findings of wildlife on adjacent properties, such as the property to the south that is undergoing habitat restoration by The Nature Conservancy. At the closest point, the Ormond Lagoon Waterway is located approximately 110 feet of the very southeast edge of the project parcel. However, as shown on Exhibit 5.1-5 of the Draft EIR (Photometric Plan), the proposed lighting will not directly spill into the adjacent open space.”
Reply: The comment addressed by the Response had nothing to do with lighting. My comment was directed toward the adequacy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting; I had not even gotten to potential project impact yet.

Response 206-303: “Please refer to response to comment 206-302.” 1243
18 Reply: My comment about Belding’s savannah sparrow (or possibly large-billed savannah sparrow) had nothing to do with the potential impacts of lighting at this point in my letter. I was addressing the adequacy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting.

Response 206-308: “Please refer to response to comment 206-111.” Reply: I fail to understand what Response 206-111 has to do with my comment on the impact of habitat loss to total bird nesting density.

Response 206-308: “following project operations, the proposed vehicle parking area, guard house, portable restroom, perimeter site lighting, and gravel surface would be removed, allowing for other types of development to be proposed.” Reply: I fail to understand how preparation of the site for its next stage of development is going to do anything to avoid, minimize, rectify or compensate for the impact of habitat loss on total bird nest density.

Response 206-308: “For the aforementioned reasons, because impacts are less than significant, mitigation measures are not required.”
Reply: Nothing about the response indicates that my impact prediction would be any less than I presented in my comment.

Response 206-310: “Please refer to response to comment 206-308.” Reply: Response 206-308 does not address my predicted annual loss of 1,907 birds that would be caused by the project. Since my comments of 9 February 2022, my method for estimating total bird density and the number of birds that would be denied California due to habitat loss was peer-reviewed and published (Smallwood 2022).

Response 206-311 and Response 206-312: “Please refer to response to comment 206-308.”
Reply: Response 206-308 does not address my comment, especially my comment on specific species likely to lose habitat as a result of the project. Also, I must point out that Response 206-308 is confusing and therefore of little informative value. According to the Response, “...following project operations, the proposed vehicle parking area, guard house, portable restroom, perimeter site lighting, and gravel surface would be removed, allowing for other types of development to be proposed. Given the temporary use of the site for outdoor vehicle storage for a maximum of 5 years and that the proposed project does not include permanent structures, the proposed project does not preclude future non-industrial uses.” The Response says that the proposed project would clear the way for a subsequent develop project, which does not preclude non-industrial uses. In other words, anything can happen. What would not happen, however, is a return to the 1244
19 productive capacity for wildlife that the site provides now. The soil would be dead after being covered by gravel and cars for 5 years.

Response 206-315: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement. No further response is required.”
Reply: My comment was a comment. I identified special-status species of birds that I witnessed flying over the project site. I photographed some of these birds and inserted the photos to my comment letter as substantial evidence in the record. The FEIR does not seriously address my comment.

Response 206-316: “Please refer to response to comment 206-308.” Reply: The FEIR provides no response specific to my comment that the DEIR adopts a false CEQA standard to analyze potential project interference with wildlife movement in the region.

Response 206-317: “During this temporary project, the project site will not offer any foraging habitat, and it will be unlikely that species would utilize the site. The project includes fencing around the perimeter of the site and fencing will function to redirect species such as raptors.”
Reply: The impact of which I commented – wildlife-automobile collision mortality – would not take place on the project site, but rather on the roads traversed by traffic generated by the project. The response is misdirected and entirely misses the meaning of my comment.

Response 206-317: “The additional biological analysis will take all potential impacts into consideration.”
Reply: The meaning of this response is lost on me. I found no additional biological analysis in the FEIR, nor did I find any analysis of automobile collision mortality.

Response 206-319: “The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required.” Reply: My comment was not an introduction to comments to follow. It presented an analysis leading to a prediction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the purpose of predicting wildlife mortality that would result from project-generated traffic. I included my analysis because VMT is an important predictor variable in my analysis of wildlifeautomobile mortality caused by project-generated traffic. The DEIR failed to report a prediction of VMT, so based on my experience with reviewing VMT predicted for other proposed projects, I predicted VMT based on the average miles attributed to commuting employees and based on daily vehicle delivery mileage reported in the DEIR.

In response to comments on the DEIR, the FEIR (pages 12-13 and 12-14) reports a prediction of 475 daily VMT attributed to vehicle deliveries to and from the project site. 1245
20 The FEIR does not report VMT attributed to employee commute, so I will continue to rely on my assumption of my original analysis to again predict 219,000 annual VMT for employee commute. This latter rate added to the revised 173,375 annual VMT for vehicle deliveries yields 392,375 annual VMT for the project, which is a larger VMT than I had predicted in my 9 February 2022 comment letter. I therefore update my wildlife mortality prediction. Based on the methods summarized in my comment letter, I predict 215 wildlife fatalities per year caused by project-generated traffic. In my opinion, based on the evidence provided by the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study and my prediction of the project’s annual VMT on local roads, it is my opinion that the project’s toll on wildlife due to wildlife-vehicle collision mortality would qualify as an unmitigated significant impact to wildlife.

Response 206-320: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement. No further response is required.”
Reply: An analysis resulting in an impact prediction is not merely a statement in the context of comments on an DEIR.

Response 206-322: “The City acknowledges the comment as a statement. No further response is required.”
Reply: I commented on a major flaw of the DEIR’s analysis of cumulative impacts. My comment was not a mere statement.

Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82. 1246
21 Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Rincon. 2018. Biological Resources Inventory, 34-acre project site, City of Oxnard, Ventura County, California. Report to Giles Pettifor, Environmental Manager, Oxnard Harbor District, Port Hueneme, California.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.

Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795.
1247
ATTACHMENT 8
1248
February 14, 2022
City of Oxnard, Planning Division
Attn: Jay Dobrowalski, Associate Planner
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
[email protected]
Dear Jay Dobrowalski,
On Behalf of the Wishtoyo Foundation (“Wishtoyo”) we submit the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH NO. 2020069039 (DEIR) for the Port of Hueneme Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage Project (“Project”).

Founded in 1997, Wishtoyo Foundation is a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit public interest organization with members composed of Chumash Native Americans, First Nations People, and Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles County residents. Wishtoyo is place, organization, and movement inspiring people to live in harmony with our Earth again. Wishtoyo serves as a “rainbow bridge” linking Chumash and Indigenous lifeways with the protection of natural and cultural resources, utilizing traditional ecological knowledge to provide environmental and cultural preservation and justice, education, research, and advocacy.

Project Description and Piecemeal
The DEIR has failed to properly disclose and analyze the full Project to include 1) the temporary vehicle storage facility discussed in this DEIR as Phase I and 2) the 250-acre permanent vehicle storage facility as Phase II of the Project. Separating these two phases is an impermissible 1249
piecemeal of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) environmental review process. The CEQA Guidelines define “project” broadly as “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment ….” (Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a)). Further, environmental analysis must include the environmental effects of future expansion or other action if: (1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.

Phase II is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project because the only purpose of the initial temporary facility is to serve as a bridge to the Port’s expansion of vehicle storage capabilities while the Port seeks the necessary approvals for the second facility. The Project is just Phase I of the Port’s expansion and is only being proposed in anticipation for the Port to expand its operations permanently. Officials from the Port have been clear about this with certain members of the community and the City. (See Attachment A1). While the Port has disclosed this two-phase approach to some, it and the City failed to include this necessary information in the DEIR and failed to provide the legally mandated environmental review of all aspects of the Project, including Phase I and Phase II. Thus, because the City and the Port knew and have been planning on implementing Phase I and Phase II of the Port’s vehicle storage expansion since the beginning, Phase II is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Project.

The future expansion of Phase II will also change the scope and nature of the environmental effects of the Project. First, Phase II will be a permanent vehicle storage facility, not a five-year Project as analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR did not analyze the environmental impacts of a permanent vehicle storage facility. The DEIR must be conducted including analysis on the temporary and potential permanent siting of Phase I at the Project’s current location and the permanent siting of Phase II of the Project. The location of the Phase II vehicle storage facility must be disclosed in this DEIR to fully inform the public of its environmental impacts. Second, Phase II will very likely include more driving and parking of vehicles not analyzed in the DEIR, thus increasing the traffic impacts, air and water pollution associated with driving and parking, 1 See Attachment A for Declaration of Lucas Zucker
1250
environmental justice concerns, impacts to Chumash cultural and natural cultural resources, and be further inconsistent with the City’s general plan and wetlands restoration plans. Lastly, the DEIR misled the public into thinking the whole Project would be a minimal temporary hindrance to their community, instead of the hidden reality that the Project is just Phase I of the Port’s expansion and a much larger and permanent vehicle storage facility.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The County failed to adequately analyze the impacts of the project on cultural resources. The DEIR expresses a clear bias against the recognition that the Chumash people live in Oxnard and near the Project area today; that they have strong relationships with the Project area; that they currently utilize natural cultural resources throughout the Project area; and that Chumash tribes, bands, and clans are sovereign entities.

The EIR misuses the term “cultural site” by using it synonymously with “archeological site” showing a clear lack of understanding of what a cultural site is. Archeological sites are locations identified to be of archeological value to researchers. Cultural sites include archeological sites, but also include many locations that are of little interest to archeologists, such as village sites where the ground has been previously disturbed and areas where sedimentation has relocated Chumash artifacts. Furthermore, cultural sites also include but are not limited to sacred sites, gathering locations, and cultural landscapes.

Further, the City abused its discretion when failing to locate Tribal Cultural Resources widely known to likely be present in the Project area through the use of the best available and widely used technology and methods. Wishtoyo requests that specially trained forensic canines in combination with ground penetrating radar are utilized to identify the location of all Native American burials and cultural remains within the project site. These techniques were used to reliably identify the location of Ohlone/Esselen burials in the KB Homes Development in Santa Cruz and for other development projects. Wishtoyo used forensic canines to detect the presence of Chumash ancestral remains/burials for the Santa Clara River Estuary / McGrath State Beach Campground Relocation and Estuary Restoration Feasibility Study with California 1251
State Parks. (Attachment 1
2 ) The use of specially trained canine forensics and ground penetrating radar, represent the best available technology and most reliable means for the identification of Native American burials, and thus should be used to identify potential impacts to Chumash Tribal Cultural Resources and to mitigate those impacts to a less than significant effect.

Under CEQA and California law, when cultural resources are identified, the preferred mitigation measure is avoidance, and if avoidance is not feasible, preservation in place as defined by the local Native nations. (CEQA Guidelines §15126.4). Avoidance and preservation in place mitigation measures cannot be implemented if Tribal Cultural Resources are not identified before the approval of the Project and its CEQA documents. Therefore, the Project’s mitigation measure MM CUL-2 is an insufficient mitigation of potential impacts to cultural resources. The presence of a Native American Monitor only during subsurface grading, trenching, and construction will not avoid impact to cultural resources. This is because once construction begins and no commitments to avoidance or preservation in place are secured, a monitor can only do so much (if anything) to secure lesser protections (such as movement of the resource to another location away from its Village location or burial ground, or recovery of the resource for storage or display in a museum) for the resources which are often damaged or destroyed by the excavating activity that resulted in its discovery. Additionally, the DEIR’s use of monitors is flawed because the DEIR fails to identify the process of selecting the Native American Monitor, and fails to contain procedures to ensure monitors from the proper Chumash Nations will be present during construction to best protect un-detected Chumash remain from harm and to help determine proper actions that must be taken to protect and preserve the Chumash remains encountered.

The DEIR has completely failed in its analysis of Project impacts to Tribal cultural resources and must properly categorize the finding of unidentified Tribal Cultural Resources and ancestral remains as a “potential significant impact” that must have adequate mitigation measures to ensure the proper consultation protocols and protections are in place.

Water Quality and Wetlands
2 See Attachment 1 for the Santa Clara River Estuary / McGrath State Beach Campground Relocation and Estuary Restoration Feasibility Study showing Wishtoyo’s use of canine forensic dogs. 1252

1. No analysis of Specific Water Quality Impacts
The DEIR failed to analyze the type and amounts of hazardous materials and toxic metals associated with vehicle liquids and fluids (fuel, coolant, oil, etc.), vehicle tires, vehicle brake pads, vehicle paint, and the environmental impact these hazardous materials and metals will have on the wetlands. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) conducted a study on water quality and toxicity of runoff from parking facilities during storm events. (Attachment 2
3 ) The study found that runoff from these sites have high concentrations of Iron, Zinc, Copper, and Lead. (Id. at ii.) These pollutants are derived from the wear of breaks, tires, and other exposed auto parts, and spills of automotive fluids. Parking facilities also tend to accumulate wind and atmospheric transported pollutants over time (Id. at 1). Furthermore, because this Project is located on the coast, the salt in the air at the Project site will wear the paint and metal parts of the cars at an accelerated rate, leading to increased concentrations of metals discharged from the site in stormwater during rain events. Metal pollutants have acute, chronic, and sub-lethal effects on marine and aquatic life in the Pacific Ocean and Ormond Beach Wetlands. (Id. at 32). They can also biomagnify in the food chain, and cause these acute, chronic, and sublethal impacts on avian species. Without this necessary analysis on hazardous materials and metal pollutants that would be contained in stormwater discharges from the Project site, the City has not informed the public on the environmental impacts of the Project, needed mitigation to prevent impacts to aquatic and avian species in receiving waters, and should not have found less than significant impact in the DEIR. The DEIR provides no information regarding hazardous materials for the public and decision makers to evaluate and comment on, thus failing to meet the requirements of CEQA. The DEIR must fully analyze the impacts of the Project on Ormond Beach Wetlands and specifically, the impacts of metals and hazardous materials discharged from the Project site during storm events.

The DEIR failed to analyze whether the stormwater discharges from the Project site during or after construction will meet Clean Water Act Water Quality Standards; will harm wildlife, recreational, cultural, or tribal ceremonial beneficial uses; and will cause or contribute to harms to Clean Water Act 303(d) listed impaired waterways. As detailed above, sufficient information exists that indicates the contaminants in stormwater discharges from the Project will harm the 3 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Technical Report 343, Characteristics of Parking Lot Runoff Produced by Simulated Runoff (July, 2001).
1253
beneficial uses of the Ormond Lagoon Waterway, Ormond Lagoon, and the Pacific Ocean. In addition, further analysis is required because the Ormond Lagoon Waterway / Lagoon are listed by the U.S. EPA and State Water Resources Control Board on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list as impaired for bacteria, pH, and trash. (Attachment 3
4 ) Thus, a comprehensive analysis is
needed that ensures the project is not causing or contributing to these impairments. For instance, as detailed above, an analysis of impacts of metals and other pollutants in stormwater discharges from the Project is needed in part to see if the Project’s discharges will cause or contribute to the pH impairments in the Ormond Beach Lagoon identified on the 303(d) list. In addition, a comprehensive EIR analysis is needed, along with a comprehensive analysis of mitigation measures, to prevent the Project from accumulating and discharging trash into Ormond Lagoon Waterway and Ormond Lagoon, and the Pacific Ocean.17 This is especially the case because it is critical the Project does not cause or contribute to trash pollution of these waters, which are already 303(d) listed for trash. (See attachment 3.) Without this analysis, it is likely that the well-known trash littering and accumulation problem that plagues these waters and Oxnard’s streets near the wetlands, will be deposited onto the Project site (via littering / dumping activities, or via wind), and then will be conveyed either by wind or stormwater discharges from the Project’s graded and graveled surfaces into the adjacent Ormond Lagoon Water Way, Ormond Lagoon, tšumaš Creek, or the Pacific Ocean.

The City failed to implement necessary mitigation measures that would reduce the environmental impacts of metals, trash and hazardous materials to less than significant levels.

As discussed in the SCCWRP report, best management practices are needed to reduce the toxicity of stormwater runoff from parking facilities. (Attachment 2 at iii.) Best management practices could include bioretention areas that allow runoff from the Project to pond and filter through vegetation and soil. The Project could also include sand beds to filter the runoff and planted wetland vegetation to naturally treat and filter runoff before it enters Ormond Lagoon Waterway (Attachment 45). The DEIR failed to analyze or require any, and the necessary, best management practices for stormwater runoff to ensure the hazardous materials, trash, and 4 February 5, 2018 State Water Board Transmittal to the U.S. EPA – that includes relevant excerpts from the State Water Board’s 303(d) list approvals and 2014 / 2016 California Integrated report; U.S. EPA Approved California 2014-2016 Clean Water Act 303(d) List of Impaired Waters dated April 6, 2018. 5 Stormwater Management Practices at EPA Facilities (February 2017), (last accessed 1/28/2019) available at https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/stormwater-management-practices-epa-facilities 1254
metals associated with the Project would not impact water quality or the wetlands, during or after construction of the Project.

2. No analysis of Wetland Retreat in Response to Sea Level Rise The DEIR did not properly consider the Project’s consistency with Oxnard’s certified Local Coastal Plan (“LCP”) and the other approvals that may be required. If any portion of the project site is within the coastal zone, a coastal development permit and possibly an LCP amendment will be necessary. According to a study conducted by UCLA, the project site is located in the future Upland Transition Zone (“UTZ”) of Ormond Beach Wetlands (Attachment 5 6 (“UCLA
Study” or “Study”)). The Study predicts that the mean sea level will rise 0.6 m by 2050 due to projected impacts from climate change. (Id. at 11). The UCLA Study predicted that Southern California wetland habitat will naturally retreat inland. The preservation of habitat inland of these wetland areas is essential for their successful retreat. The project lies in an important location for UTZ wetland habitat (Id. at 37, Figure 14). The construction of this temporary parking facility and disturbance of this land would significantly degrade the suitability of this habitat for future sea level rise conditions, and would impair and prevent future reclaiming of the Ormond Beach wetlands Project site needed for the wetland habitat and the endangered wildlife (see below) that depends on it to exist. The DEIR failed to consider any projections of sea level rise or wetland retreat, the associated impacts of the Project on future Ormond Beach Wetlands habitat and the endangered species that rely on the Ormond Beach Wetlands, and City of Oxnard must prepare a full EIR to further analyze the Project’s impacts on retreating wetlands and UTZ habitat.
6 UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, Evaluating Physical Suitability, Land Use, and Cost Feasibility for Acquiring Land for Wetland Transgression in Selected Southern California Wetlands, (last accessed 1/28/2022) available at https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/wetlandspracticum_finalreport.pdf. 1255
Furthermore, the DEIR must evaluate the Project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impact on all community restoration and public access plans for the Ormond Beach Wetlands, including The Ormond Beach Restoration and Public Access Plan. While an EIR is required (1) to analyze the Project’s impacts on all restoration and public access plans for the Ormond Beach Wetlands, and to ensure consistency and no impacts to these plans, and (2) that includes scoping with the Oxnard community, California government agencies (such as the Coastal Conservancy), and nonprofits (such as the Nature Conservancy involved in such restoration plans to inform this analysis), the DEIR fails to analyze the impacts on all restoration and public access plans for the Ormond Beach Wetlands, and fails to analyze whether the Project will make the Ormond Beach Wetlands less or non-tourist/visitor friendly (a critical element to improving the local economy and providing a fulfilling experience that attracts residents and visitors), thereby being harmful or inconsistent with the Ormond Beach Restoration and Public Access Plan. For instance, see attached presentation of the Ormond Beach Restoration and Public Access Plan. (Attachment Project Site
1256
6 7
). A comprehensive analysis must be undertaken as to how the Project impacts public access to the Wetlands and enjoyment of the Wetlands, such as interaction with wildlife, aesthetic enjoyment and views when walking through and enjoying the wetlands, and spiritual enjoyment.

Further, the Project must be considered, and if it moves forward, planned in conjunction with any Ormond Beach Wetlands preservation, public access, and restoration project.

Harms to Wildlife

1. Poor Survey and Literature Review Informing the DEIR’s Biological Resources Analysis
The DEIR utterly fails in its analysis of the Project’s impacts to sensitive wildlife and surrounding ecosystems. The DEIR fails to even mention more than 20 listed or special status species that are known to exist in the area. The literature review and reconnaissance-level surveys conducted in 2018 and 2020 proved to be woefully inadequate in determining the full scope of impacts this project would have on wildlife and sensitive species habitats.

The reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted in April 2018 and October 2020. The 2018 survey was conducted between 10 and 11 am and the 2020 survey was conducted between 9:30 and 10:30 am. Both of these surveys were conducted too late in the day for representative avian species observations. April is typically too early for representative breeding bird surveys and October does not represent breeding season counts, and is too late in the year for a representative list of fall-migrating avian species. The description of these surveys included no standardized methodology for how these surveys were conducted, making them impossible to replicate or determine if observed species were identified and quantified properly. No nocturnal surveys were conducted to determine the presence of anuran species in the project location and no special status anuran species are mentioned in the DEIR. No surveys were conducted to determine bat species presence near the Project area and no special status bat species are mentioned in the DEIR.

2. Listed and Special Status Species Missing from DEIR
7 For additional information regarding the Ormond Beach Restoration Project please see attachments 18- 22 1257
The DEIR’s lack of analysis of impacts to biological resources in the Project area and adjacent Ormond Beach Wetlands demonstrates the City’s complete ignorance of local ecology and biological resources. The use of the CNDDB and poorly conducted reconnaissance surveys provided meek species lists that are not at all representative of the project site or Ormond Wetlands. The DEIR failed to analyze the Project’s full impact on listed and special status species that exist in the Project area.

More than 200 bird species are known to use the Ormond Beach Wetlands for breeding, foraging, roosting, and migration. Among these avian species are multiple species of “birds of prey” which are protected under California Fish and Game Code section 3503.5. Birds of prey that exist in the project area and adjacent wetlands that are not included in the DEIR include:

White-tailed Kite, Northern Harrier, Red-tailed Hawk, Red-shouldered Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Sharp-shinned Hawk, American Kestrel, Peregrine Falcon, Merlin, and Osprey. A Red-tailed Hawk was even observed during a reconnaissance survey, but was not included as a special status species. All of these species have been observed either in the project area, or in the adjacent wetlands. All of these species are protected under California law and the DEIR must include analysis on the Project’s impacts to birds of prey.

Salt marsh and coastal wetland habitats have declined up to 90% in California, making Ormond Beach Wetlands a rare gem and an exceptionally important area for sensitive and endangered plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds. The Project may have a significant impact on the ecosystems on which these species rely. The Project will have stormwater runoff exit the facility and drain into Ormond Lagoon Waterway, and eventually into Ormond Lagoon. As mentioned in the Water Quality and Wetlands section, the Project area will be in the Upland Transitional Zone according to sea level rise and wetland retreat projections.

Species that rely on mixed vegetation communities will also need to retreat with wetlands, and will not be able to do so if the proposed Project area is disturbed further. As observed in the reconnaissance surveys performed for the DEIR, the Project area provides habitat for multiple prey species including small song birds and gopher snakes. If a parking lot, even temporary, is built here, this will limit foraging habitat for birds of prey and may increase the likelihood of harm from Project associated toxins or vehicle strikes.
1258
The DEIR failed to include an impact analysis of multiple California Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected species that are known to occur in and near the Project Area. The fully protected species the DEIR failed to analyze, or even mention, are the White-tailed Kite and Peregrine Falcon. As well as birds of prey, these species are also fully protected under California law FGC 3511. Species of Special Concern that are known to occur in and near the Project area, but do not appear in the DEIR are: San Diegan tiger whiptail, Blainville’s horned lizard, coast patch-nosed Snake, south coast garter snake, California glossy snake, western spadefoot, western pond turtle, and coast range newt. As these species are listed as species of special concern in California and are known to exist in the project area and surrounding habitats, the DEIR must include these species and analyses of Project impacts to these sensitive species.

The DEIR failed to include an impact analysis of multiple federally listed species that are known to occur in and near the Project Area. These species include California orcutt grass, Gambel’s watercress, marsh sandwort, spreading navarretia, Marbled Murrelet, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. The DEIR must include these listed species and an analysis of Project impacts to these sensitive species and their habitats.

3. Impacts to Sensitive Wildlife and Their Habitats
Of great concern are the Project’s hazardous materials, trash, and metals entering the Ormond Lagoon Waterway and Ormond Lagoon through stormwater runoff, polluting the waters and harming the endangered tidewater goby that reside in the two water bodies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists Ormond Lagoon Waterway and tšumaš Creek in the LA/Ventura Recovery Unit in their Recovery Plan for the endangered tidewater goby. (Attachment 7 8 at Figure B-17).

The DEIR provides no analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from the Project on the tidewater goby, even though the project will discharge stormwater into the goby’s habitat which is located only 125 feet from the proposed Project site. Vital habitat for the tidewater goby has been lost or impacted by metal and industrial pollution in other streams. There is precedent 8 Pacific Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery Plan for the Tidewater Goby (December, 2005) 1259
of tidewater goby habitat becoming “Water Quality Limited” due to pollution associated with metal toxicity. The State Water Quality Control Board lists tidewater goby habitat in Goleta Slough as “Water Quality Limited”; partially due to metal pollutants which harm the species (Id. at C-26). The US Fish and Wildlife Service specifically lists “watercourse contamination resulting from vehicular activity in the vicinity of lagoons'' as a threat to the tidewater goby’s habitat (Attachment 8 at pg. 39) The hazardous materials from the Project, including Iron, Zinc, Copper, trash, and Lead, will contaminate the goby’s habitat and will contribute to the take of the tidewater goby, violating the Endangered Species Act and preventing the recovery of the species. The City must analyze the impact the Project will have on water quality of Ormond Lagoon Waterway and Ormond Lagoon and the Project’s impact on tidewater goby and its habitat.

The hazardous materials, trash, and metals discharged during storm events from the Project will also have a significant impact on the endangered California Least Tern. California Least Terns nest at Ormond Beach Wetlands from mid-April to late September. (Attachment 9 10 at 1).

Ormond Lagoon Waterway flows into Ormond Lagoon, which is an important foraging habitat for California Least Terns. Toxins and metals introduced from the Project’s runoff during storm events can accumulate in the tissues and gills of small fish species which are eaten by California Least Terns and fed to their young. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) conducted a study on aquatic toxicants and their presence in seabird eggshells. The study focused on four seabird species including the California Least Tern (Attachment 10
11 at 2). Heavy metals, as well as other toxicants were found in all of their California Least Tern eggshell samples (Id. at 7). California Least Terns are susceptible to the biomagnification of these toxicants due to their foraging habits in near-shore environments (Id. at 23). The MND failed to analyze the Project’s direct, indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts from metal and other hazardous materials entering into waterways during storm events, accumulating in small fish and benthic macroinvertebrates, and impacting the endangered 9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tidewater Goby, Humboldt Bay, (last accessed 1/28/2019) available at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Humboldt_Bay/wildlife_and_habitat/TidewaterGoby.html. 10 California Department of Fish and Game South Coast Region, California Least Tern Breeding Survey 2009 Season (July, 2010)
11 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Technical Report 944, Contaminant Bioaccumulation in Seabird Eggs of the Southern California Bight (September, 2016). 1260
California Least Tern. The City must prepare a full EIR because the Project may harm endangered species, a harm that must be adequately analyzed.

The DEIR completely failed to analyze the Project’s potential impacts on the Peregrine Falcon, a California fully protected species. The DEIR does not even mention Peregrine Falcons in the Biological Resources section, even though they are found throughout the region and observed frequently at Ormond Beach and in Oxnard. The Project description includes 240 vehicle trips to the temporary vehicle storage facility per day. Though the DEIR claims this is fewer trips and vehicle miles in the region because the site is closer to the Port than existing storage facilities, this is increasing vehicle traffic to a site adjacent to the Ormond Beach Wetlands and important hunting habitat for Peregrine Falcons. Studies on Peregrine Falcon mortality have found that collisions with motorized vehicles make up a significant percentage of deaths for fledgling, juvenile, and adult falcons (Attachment 1112). As mentioned in the water quality impacts section of this letter, the bioaccumulation of metals and other pollutants originating from this Project may impact California Least Terns and other foraging sea and shore birds. Terns, plovers, and other shore birds are important sources of prey for Peregrine Falcons, which are apex predators that specialize in hunting avian species. Bioaccumulation of metals and toxicants could have an even more severe effect on falcons since they prey on birds that are already affected by bioaccumulation. Heavy metals can significantly limit immune mechanisms in birds of prey, and increase their susceptibility to bacteria and parasite infection (Attachment 1213). Since the DEIR completely failed to recognize the Peregrine Falcon and its habitat in the Project and surrounding areas, there was no analysis on potential impacts to the fully protected species.

The DEIR must include an analysis of impacts on Peregrine Falcons and must include Mitigation Measures for these impacts.

Further, the Project’s location is connected to a greater wildlife corridor and the MND failed to analyze how the Project will impact wildlife accessing and using the neighboring wetlands. The 12 Gahbauer, Marcel & Bird, David & Clark, Kathleen & French, Tom & Brauning, Dan & Mcmorris, F.. (2015). Productivity, Mortality, and Management of Urban Peregrine Falcons in Northeastern North America. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 79. 10.1002/jwmg.803. 13 Pyzik, E., Dec, M., Stępień-Pyśniak, D., Marek, A., Piedra, J., Chałabis-Mazurek, A., Szczepaniak, K., & Urban-Chmiel, R. (2021). The presence of pathogens and heavy metals in urban peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus). Veterinary world, 14(7), 1741–1751. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2021.1741- 1751
1261
Project’s proximity to Ormond Beach Wetlands and future designation as Upland Transitional Zone habitat makes the Project area an important habitat for wetland species and species that rely on transitional habitat zones. UTZs provide wildlife habitat, high tide refugia for wetland species, and vital space for the wetland to migrate in response to climate change and sea level rise (Attachment 1314, pg. 3-427). The City must conduct an analysis to determine the impacts of vehicle storage, grading, fencing, and hazardous materials entering the waterways on the wildlife corridor associated with the area and the wetlands.

DEIR also completely failed to analyze the Project’s impacts on the White-tailed Kite, a fully protected species under California Law. There is no mention of the White-tailed Kite in the DEIR, even though the species is found frequently in Ventura County, Ormond Beach Wetlands, and hunting in open spaces and along roadways. The DEIR completely failed to analyze potential impacts the project may have on any raptor species in the Project area. 1) The project will be grading and graveling 34 acres of open space. Though this lot may be disturbed, the Project site is habitat for prey species like mice, voles, gophers, snakes, song birds, and ground squirrels. Left as it is, the space is 34 acres of hunting habitat for White-tailed Kites, Cooper’s Hawks, Sharp-shinned Hawks, Northern Harriers, Red-shouldered Hawks, Red-tailed hawks, Great Horned Owls, Barn Owls, Burrowing Owls, Merlins, American Kestrels, and Peregrine Falcons. 2) The project will be increasing vehicle traffic with 240 vehicle trips to the Project site per day. A study conducted on North American urban raptor species found that vehicular strikes were the leading cause of mortality for 39% of the raptor species studied (Attachment 1415). 3) The temporary vehicle storage facility may introduce heavy metals pollution to the site and increase these pollutants’ concentrations in the adjacent waterways and wetlands. A review of bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the food web found that carnivorous birds experience the highest concentration of toxic heavy metals as a result of bioaccumulation of these pollutants (Attachment 1516). The DEIR completely failed to look into possible pathways for the Project’s pollutants to enter the food web and impact sensitive birds of prey like the White-tailed Kite. 14 Brian Fulfrost, Meg Marriott, Christina Sloop, David Thomson, Laura Valoppi, Management of MarshUpland Transitional Habitats 15 Hager, Stephen. (2009). Human-Related Threats to Urban Raptors. Journal of Raptor Research. 43. 210-226. 10.3356/JRR-08-63.1.
16 Hazrat Ali & Ezzat Khan (2019) Trophic transfer, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification of nonessential hazardous heavy metals and metalloids in food chains/webs—Concepts and implications for 1262
Though the DEIR included the Burrowing Owl in its meager species list, it did not include any analysis of impacts to the species. As mentioned above, the Project site comprises 34 acres of habitat used by multiple rodent species, including ground squirrels. Burrowing Owls depend on burrowing mammal species, especially ground squirrels, for their breeding habitat and burrows.

Burrow availability is a key limiting resource for Burrowing Owls. Ground squirrels are essential for providing habitat and the recovery of the Burrowing Owl (Attachment 1617). By grading, graveling, and turning this area into a vehicle storage facility, the Project will remove 34 acres of possible breeding, burrowing, and foraging habitat for the Burrowing Owl.

Without analyzing the negative impacts that the Project will have on wildlife, especially endangered and threatened species, the City failed to provide sufficient disclosure of the Project’s environmental effects to allow the public and decision makers to evaluate and comment on the project’s environmental consequences.

Air Quality
The DEIR’s analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas impacts lacks any information regarding increased emissions from cold-starting engines. If 240 vehicles per day will be started and driven to the vehicle storage facility, that is 240 cold-starts per day. These vehicles will also be started and driven off the parking facility to distributors and customers regularly. The DEIR also states that up to 30,000 vehicles will be stored at this facility annually, bringing the total to at least 60,000 cold starts per year (engine ignition when leaving the Port, and engine ignition when leaving the storage facility). Catalytic systems that vehicles use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are only designed to work at the vehicles’ normal operating temperature. When a vehicle is cold started, carbon monoxide and total hydrocarbon emissions increase significantly wildlife and human health, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 25:6, 1353- 1376, DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2018.1469398
17 See Attachment 16 for the Field Notes Entry from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. 1263
over normal driving conditions (Attachment 1718). The DEIR must include a full analysis of the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions, including increased emissions associated with cold-start.

While the DEIR did analyze specific localized emissions, there is no discussion on how the emissions will contribute to climate change and sea level rise contributing to the retreating wetlands. Further there is no discussion on how the Project hindering the goals of Assembly Bill 32 “in reducing … annual emissions of 14 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for every man, woman and child in California down to about 10 tons per person by 2020… [and the fact that] [e]very part of California's economy needs to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”19 The DEIR fails to mitigate against or analyze the significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, thus the DEIR must fully analyze the issue and provide the necessary mitigation measures needed.

Traffic Congestion
The DEIR misleads the public concerning the Project’s impacts on traffic congestion in South Oxnard. The DEIR states that there will be less than significant impact on traffic congestion because these vehicles would normally be sent to other facilities in the region. This is misleading and a poor analysis of the Project’s impacts. There will be 240 vehicle trips to the Project site per day associated with this project. That is 240 more vehicles on the road per day traveling to the Project site. Current operations have these vehicles moving to storage by car carrier to other facilities and impacting traffic elsewhere in the county. The DEIR fails to analyze specific impacts to traffic congestion in the community surrounding the Project area. South Oxnard is already burdened by an industrialized coastline and continuous shipping of freight and cargo along Hueneme Rd. The DEIR must include this analysis, focused on South Oxnard and the cumulative traffic impacts to which this project would contribute.

DEIR is Inconsistent with the City of Oxnard’s duty to address Environmental Justice in Government Planning
18 Christos Dardiotis, Giorgio Martini, Alessandro Marotta, Urbano Manfredi. Low-temperature cold-start gaseous emissions of late technology passenger cars. Applied Energy. Volume 111. 2013. Pages 468- 478. ISSN 0306-2619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.093. 19 Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 220. 1264
The DEIR fails to mention the City of Oxnard’s requirement to address Environmental Justice in the City’s General Plan, as is required by SB 1000. The Project would have major impacts on disproportionately burdened communities in South Oxnard. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and their program, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, Oxnard is a community disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution. The program identifies the region, where the Project is located, is in the 98th percentile for the pollution burden rating. This census district had the highest Pollution Burden Percentile out of the Oxnard districts and is considered to be a disadvantaged community under SB535. The DEIR ignored the community’s comments and requests that the DEIR analyze the extent to which the Project’s cumulative impacts on air quality, traffic congestion, aesthetics, and impacts from discharge of hazardous materials (including trash and metals) into receiving waterways will increase the pollution burdens felt by the Oxnard disproportionately burdened community. The City must conduct further analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on the Oxnard community, as a disadvantaged community that is already disproportionately burdened by environmental pollution. Failure to include this analysis would result in the DEIR being inconsistent with the City of Oxnard’s 2030 General Plan and the City’s failure to comply with SB 1000.
1265
Conclusion
As discussed at length in this letter, the DEIR utterly failed to analyze the full impacts the Project would have on cultural resources, water quality, wetlands, biological resources, air quality, traffic congestion, and environmental justice. The DEIR also failed to analyze the project as a whole and failed to inform the public of the Port of Hueneme’s full expansion plan, which includes the 250-acre permanent vehicle storage facility. The EIR must be redrafted to include this full analysis, and must include a complete analysis of the Project’s impacts to the environment. The City of Oxnard cannot proceed with this woefully inadequate environmental review.

Mati Waiya
Executive Director
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Tevin Schmitt
Watershed Scientist
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
Eva Pagaling
Watershed Science Intern
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation
1266
RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OXNARD

UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 22-01 (SCH #2020069039) AND

APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE PORT OF

HUENEME - TEMPORARY OUTDOOR VEHICLE STORAGE FACILITY

PROJECT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HUENEME ROAD

AND PERKINS ROAD, AND BOUNDED BY HUENEME ROAD TO THE

NORTH, URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST, THE UNION PACIFIC

RAILROAD TO THE SOUTH, AND THE ADVANCED WATER
PURIFICATION FACILITY AND PERKINS ROAD TO THE WEST (APN’S 231-0-092-105, AND 231-0-092-245). FILED BY APPLICANT CHRISTINA BIRDSEY, 333 PONOMA STREET, PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA
93044-0608 ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNER A&J OXNARD LLC, 18980 VENTURA BOULEVARD, UNIT 200, TARZANA, CALIFORNIA 91356.

WHEREAS, on March 29, 2018, Christina Birdsey (the “Applicant” and/or “Permittee”) submitted a request to approve Planning and Zoning Permit No. 18–500-02 (Special Use Permit) to construct a temporary outdoor vehicle storage facility with a mobile guardhouse/office, portable restroom, portable light fixtures, drainage improvements, capacity for 4,944 vehicles on a gravel surface, landscaping and fencing on two lots (for a total of approximately 34 acres), located a the southeast corner of Hueneme Road and Perkins Road, and bounded by Hueneme Road to the north, urban development to the east, the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, and the Advanced Water Purification Facility and Perkins Road to the west (APNs: 231-0-092-105 and 231-0-092-245) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was issued on June 25, 2020, soliciting public input regarding a DEIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, the public comment period on the NOP ran for thirty (30) days commencing on June 25, 2020 and ending on July 24, 2020; and
WHEREAS, a DEIR reflecting input received in response to the NOP was prepared and released for public and agency review on December 16, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the public comment period on the DEIR ran for sixty-one (61) days commencing on December 16, 2021 and ending on February 14, 2022; and
WHEREAS, after the close of the comment period on the DEIR, the DEIR was modified as set forth in the response to comment document and Chapter 1.1 of the FEIR, Summary Of Changes To The DEIR and Appendices; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared Final EIR No. 22-01 containing all comments received on the DEIR, written responses to all substantive comments, and necessary changes to the text of the DEIR; and
1267
Resolution No. _______ (EIR No. 22-01; Port Temporary Vehicle Storage) City Council Date: December 6, 2022
Attachment 6 - Resolution (Environmental Impact Report)