HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2022 1102 CCSA REG ITEM 08A SUPPLEMENTAL
MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL
SUPPLEMENTAL
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable City Council
FROM: Shanna Farley, Principal Planner
DATE: 11/02/2022 Regular Meeting
SUBJECT: Consider Resolution Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Approval of
Industrial Planned Development No. 2022-01 and Conditional Use
Permit No. 2022-01 to Allow the Development a 90,566 Square-Foot
Industrial Warehouse Building and Associated Site Work on
5.65 Acres of Property, Located at 10941 Los Angeles Avenue, on the
Application of Amir Development on Behalf of Moorpark Lot A, LP
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION / PUBLIC COMMENT:
Subsequent to the publication of the agenda, one public comment letter was received on
November 2, 2022.
Attachment: Public Comment Letter dated November 2, 2022
Item: 8.A.
SUPPLEMENTAL
1
November 2, 2022
Via E-mail
Janice S. Parvin, Mayor
Dr. Antonio Castro, Mayor Pro Tem
Chris Enegren, Councilmember
David Pollock, Councilmember
Daniel Groff, Councilmember
City Council
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
jparvin@moorparkca.gov
acastro@moorparkca.gov
cenegren@moorparkca.gov
dpollock@moorparkca.gov
dgroff@moorparkca.gov
citycouncil@moorparkca.gov
Moorpark@moorparkca.gov
Shanna Farley, Principal Planner
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
sfarley@moorparkca.gov
Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner II
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
fcarrillo@moorparkca.gov
Re: SAFER’s Supplemental Comments in Opposition to the Final Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Pentair Warehouse
Expansion Project; November 2, 2022 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
Dear Mayor Parvin, Mayor Pro Tem Castro, Honorable Councilmembers Enegren, Pollock, and
Groff, Ms. Farley, and Mr. Carrillo:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), SCH
No. 2022070289, prepared for the Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project, including all actions
related or referring to the proposed construction of a 90,566-square-foot industrial building for
Pentair Pool Products located at 10941 Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, California, (Assessor’s
Parcel Number 511-0-200-265) (“Project”), to be heard as Agenda Item 8.A at the November 2,
2022 Moorpark City Council Meeting.
After reviewing the Final IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational
document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental
impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Moorpark (“City”) prepare an environmental
impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”), Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21000, et seq.
ATTACHMENT
2
Supplemental Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
November 2, 2022
Page 2 of 8
SAFER submitted comments to the Planning Commission on September 27, 2022, which
were supported by comments from expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and
environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). (See, SAFER
September 27, 2022 comment, Exhibits A-B, attached as Exhibit 3.)
I. THE FINAL IS/MND AND THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FAILED
TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO REFUTE DR. SMALLWOOD
AND CDFW’S CONCLUSION THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS REQUIRING
AN EIR.
Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s August 14, 2022 expert comment was
included as Exhibit A to SAFER’s September 27, 2022 comment. Dr. Smallwood’s expert
comments concluded that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant adverse
biological impacts, even with implementation of the IS/MND’s proposed mitigation measures.
After reviewing the Final IS/MND and the City’s response to comments, Dr. Smallwood found
that they were insufficient to address the issues he previously raised regarding the Project’s
significant adverse impacts to biological resources. He also found inadequate, the City’s
response to California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) August 17, 2022 comment
that raised issues about the IS/MND’s failure to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s
potentially significant adverse impacts to biological resources, including impacts to the Gabbert
Canyon channel and Arroyo Simi creek, sensitive plants and/or sensitive plant communities, and
non-game mammals and wildlife potentially moving through or seeking temporary refuge on the
Project site. (See, CDFW August 14, 2022 comment, attached as Exhibit 4.) Dr. Smallwood’s
supplemental letter explaining why the City’s response to CDFW and his expert comments is
inadequate, is attached to this comment as Exhibit 1. (See, Exhibit 1, pp. 1-13.) However, Dr.
Smallwood’s supplemental letter primarily focuses on addressing the City’s responses to
CDFW’s August 17, 2022 comments because the City chose not to respond Dr. Smallwood’s
August 14, 2022 expert comments. (Id., p. 1 [stating that because the Final IS/MND “includes no
responses to [Dr. Smallwood’s] comments of 14 August 2022,” he decided to “provide replies to
comments provided in a 17 August 2022 comment letter from California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW).”].)
In Dr. Smallwood’s original comment, he concluded that the draft IS/MND fails as an
informational document because of its (1) woefully inadequate characterization of the
environmental setting as it relates to wildlife, (2) improper reliance on pre-construction nesting
bird surveys that are insufficient to mitigate potential significant impacts to birds on the Project
site, (3) failure to complete a full analysis of the degree of habitat loss on the Project site, (4)
flawed analysis of the Project’s interference with wildlife movement, (5) failure to analyze
increased traffic and associated vehicle collision mortalities on wildlife in the area, and (6)
flawed analysis of potential cumulative impacts of past, ongoing, and future projects on wildlife.
The City failed to respond or rebut Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions regarding the Project’s
potential to result in significant adverse biological resources impacts. (Exhibit 1, p. 13 [see, e.g.,
3
Supplemental Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
November 2, 2022
Page 3 of 8
City Response 6-19 and Dr. Smallwood’s Reply].) Instead, the City provided a conclusory
statement in its November 2, 2022 City Council Agenda Report rejecting the biological resources
issues raised by SAFER in its September 27, 2022 comment and provided no substantial
evidence to support its conclusion that the Project would result in a less-than-significant
biological resources impact. (See, e.g., Moorpark City Council Agenda Report, November 2,
2022 Regular Meeting, p. 12.)
Because the City failed to respond to Dr. Smallwood’s August 14, 2022 expert
comments, included as Exhibit A to SAFER’s September 27, 2022 comment, Dr. Smallwood’s
supplemental letter largely focuses on rebutting the City’s inadequate response to the biological
resource issues raised by CDFW in its August 17, 2022 comment. CDFW’s original comment set
out the following three issues related to the Project’s potential impacts to biological resources,
which the City’s response refuted but Dr. Smallwood’s supplemental reply letter supports:
(1) CDFW Issue #1: Impacts to Aquatic and Riparian Resources, Lake and
Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSA). “The Project may result in direct or
indirect impacts to the Gabbert Canyon channel and Arroyo Simi creek. It is also
unclear if the feature which cuts diagonally through the site provides a hydrologic
function.” (See, Exhibit 4, pp. 3-4.)
Dr. Smallwood’s Rebuttal: “The[ [City’s] response does not address the [CDFW
Gabbert Canyon channel impact] comment with sufficient detail to explain the
reasons why the comment, which raises a significant environmental issue, was
rejected by the City. . . . Google Earth imagery reveals a potential drainage feature
that crosses the project site. Photos 1 and 2 of my comment letter also show the
erosional gullies cutting from this drainage feature into Gabbert Canyon Channel.
These gullies reveal more about the current environmental setting than the IS/MND
describes. The [City’s] Responses assurance that permits would be acquired is no
substitute for accurate characterization of the current environmental setting. A fair
argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately describe the
feature that CDFW comments on.” (Exhibit 1, p. 1.)
“CDFW raises the issue of potential project impacts to flows to Arroyo Simi Creek,
whereas the [City’s] response largely addresses flows to Gabbert Canyon Channel.
The project would construct a warehouse structure onto what Google Earth reveals as
a potential natural drainage feature. The soils map shown in Figure e of Chambers
Group (2022) also reveals sandy soil extending along most of the reach of this linear
feature, further indicating it is a natural drainage feature. This drainage feature
ultimately drains into Arroyo Simi Creek. The impervious surfaces and automobile
traffic on the project site could also alter water quality of Arroyo Simi Creek.” (Id., p.
2.)
“CDFW clearly recommends completing the CEQA review, including the provision
of an accurate characterization of the current environmental setting, which is needed
4
Supplemental Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
November 2, 2022
Page 4 of 8
for analyzing potential impacts to Arroyo Simi Creek. The potential drainage feature
on the project site should be examined and its status described in an EIR.” (Id.)
(2) CDFW Issue #2: Timing of Surveys. “It is unclear if the project will impact
sensitive plants and/or sensitive plant communities. Focused botanical surveys were
not conducted, and reconnaissance level surveys were done outside of regular bloom
times.” (Exhibit 4, pp. 4-6.)
Dr. Smallwood’s Rebuttal (see generally, Exhibit 1, pp. 2-11): “The [City’s]
response ignores CDFW’s comment that the entirety of the lot needs to be surveyed
for special-status species of plants, and not just the project footprint. The response
does not address the excellent point that CDFW makes about the need to analyze
indirect impacts to plants that occur on the same property next to the project footprint.
That part of the property composes part of the current environmental setting, and
includes blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) shrubs and other plants that have been
less suppressed by disking. ‘Disturbed’ and ‘developed land’ are not plant
communities; they are categories of land condition contrived by City of Moorpark.
These categories neglect the site’s soil seedbank, and fail to inform of which plants
typically emerge and bloom in spring and summer. According to CDFW, ‘Absence
[of special-status species of plants] was determined based only on literature and a
review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).’ The response does
not address this misuse of CNDDB, specifically, but more generally reports ‘all
special status species were considered absent from the survey area.’ Absence
determinations based on CNDDB records were inappropriate, as I commented….”
(Exhibit 1, pp. 2-3.)
“Chambers Group (2022) met few of the standards of CDFW’s (2018) guidelines on
reconnaissance-level plant surveys, and did not achieve the most important standards
(Table 1). Chambers Group surveyed only once and at the wrong time of year, and
they did cover adjoining areas. As a consequence, absence determinations [for special
status or listed plants and habitats] are unsupportable.” (Id., pp. 4-10.)
“The [City’s] response inappropriately concludes that no rare vegetation communities
exist on site, because the reconnaissance-level survey that was completed largely
failed to meet the survey standards of CDFW (2018) (Table 1).” (Id., p. 11; see also,
id., pp. 8-10 (Table 1).)
(3) CDFW Issue #3: Impacts to Non-Game Mammals and Wildlife. “Wildlife may
still move through the Project site during the daytime or nighttime. CDFW is
concerned that any wildlife potentially moving through or seeking temporary refuge
on the Project site may be directly impacted during Project activities and
construction. Any final fence, or other design features, design should allow for
wildlife movement.” (Exhibit 4, pp. 6-7.)
5
Supplemental Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
November 2, 2022
Page 5 of 8
Dr. Smallwood’s Rebuttal: “On the question of whether wildlife move across the
project site, which the [City’s] response says they do not because the site is not
located within a mapped wildlife corridor and is surrounded by development, my
survey visit with Noriko Smallwood identified 20 species of wildlife, all of which we
witnessed moving across the site for various reasons [Cite]. Two of the species we
saw were special-status species, including Cooper’s hawk and American kestrel
(Birds of Prey), both of which flew across the project site while foraging. That
wildlife are present proves that CDFW’s concern about project impacts to wildlife is
valid.” (Exhibit 1, pp. 11-12.)
In addition to raising these potential biological resources impacts, CDFW also provided
several mitigation measures to help reduce these impacts to less than significant. However, as
Dr. Smallwood’s supplemental letter points out, the mitigation measures that the Final IS/MND
includes will not adequately mitigate the Project’s biological resources impacts to less than
significant. (Exhibit 1, p. 12.)
After reviewing the Final IS/MND and the City’s response to CDFW, Dr. Smallwood
maintains his initial conclusions regarding the IS/MND’s failure to adequately analyze and
mitigate the Project’s significant adverse impacts to biological resources that rely on the project
site. Thus, the City must prepare an EIR, rather than an MND, for the proposed Project.
II. THE FINAL IS/MND AND THE CITY’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FAILED
TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO REFUTE SWAPE’S
CONCLUSION THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE POTENTIAL
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE AIR QUALITY, HEALTH RISK, AND ENERGY
IMPACTS REQUIRING AN EIR.
Environmental consulting firm, SWAPE also reviewed the City’s response to comments,
and provided a supplemental rebuttal letter, which is attached to this letter as Exhibit 2. In its
August 16, 2022 comment letter, attached as Exhibit B to SAFER’s September 27, 2022
comment, SWAPE identified significant adverse project impacts from air quality and health
risks. After reviewing the Final IS/MND and the City’s response to comments, SWAPE found
they were insufficient to address the issues SWAPE previously raised regarding air quality and
health risk impacts. SWAPE also found based off its subsequent review of the Final IS/MND
that the Project poses additional air quality and energy impacts not previously noted in SWAPE
and SAFER’s original comments.
SWAPE’s review of the Final IS/MND uncovered an additional issue related to the
Project’s inadequate analysis of the Project’s air quality impacts. SWAPE found that the
following parameters used in modeling the Project’s air emissions were unsubstantiated (Exhibit
2, pp. 1-4.):
• Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural Coating Emission Factors. (Id., pp. 2-3.)
• Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Mitigation Measure. (Id., pp. 3-4.)
6
Supplemental Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
November 2, 2022
Page 6 of 8
Significantly, SWAPE points out in its supplemental letter that because the Final
IS/MND includes project design features intended to mitigate construction-related emissions that
are not formally included as mitigation measures, they may be eliminated from the Project’s
design altogether. (Exhibit 2, pp. 3-4.) As a result, there is no guarantee that any of the
IS/MND’s construction-related Tier 4 interim emission measures will be implemented,
monitored, and enforced on the Project site. (Id., p. 4.) Additionally, the Final IS/MND’s
assumption that the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 interim
emissions standards remains unsupported. (Id.) Therefore, in incorrectly including construction-
related mitigation measures without properly committing to their implementation, the Project’s
construction emissions were underestimated and should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
As a result of these errors in the Final IS/MND, the Project’s construction and operational
emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the
Project’s air quality impacts. Thus, an EIR is needed to adequately address the air quality
impacts of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.
As similarly discussed in SWAPE’s August 16, 2022 comment letter, the Final IS/MND
fails to adequately mitigate construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions. According to
SWAPE, the Final IS/MND continues to erroneously claim that the Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (“VCAPCD”) significance thresholds do not apply to construction
emissions, and that the VCAPCD only requires adherence to Rules 55, requiring all projects to
minimize construction emissions through adherence to fugitive dust control measures, and Rule
74, requiring all projects to minimize ROG through adherence to architectural coating VOC
content limits. (See, e.g., Exhibit 2, pp. 4-5 [citing Final IS/MND, p. 55].) Once again, this is
incorrect. (See, id., pp. 4-6.)
As SWAPE noted in its August 16, 2022 expert comments, the Final IS/MND’s estimates
also demonstrate “that the Project’s construction-related VOC and NOx emissions exceed the
applicable VCAPCD threshold of 25 pounds per day (“lbs/day”).” (Exhibit 2, p. 5 [citing Final
IS/MND, p. 18, Table 4].) Therefore, SWAPE notes yet again that the IS/MND must incorporate
the following VCAPCD Guidelines Section 7.4.3 measures to mitigate ozone precursor
emissions from construction motor vehicles: (1) minimize equipment idling time; (2) maintain
equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturers’ specifications; (3)
lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October), to minimize the
number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time; and (4) use alternatively fueled
construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or
electric, if feasible. (Id., pp. 5-6.) Thus, until the Final IS/MND incorporates this mitigation, the
IS/MND’s air quality analysis, and subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, cannot be
relied upon.
In addition, SWAPE’s supplemental letter also reiterates its original finding that the
IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s potential health risk impacts from project-
7
Supplemental Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
November 2, 2022
Page 7 of 8
related construction and operational emissions. (Exhibit 2, pp. 6-9.) According to SWAPE, its
review of the Final IS/MND again demonstrates the City’s failure to adequately address the
Project’s health risk impacts as a result of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions. As such,
SWAPE found the Final IS/MND “to be inadequate and maintain[s] that the IS/MND’s less-
than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact should not be relied
upon.” (Id., p. 6.)
After reviewing the Final IS/MND, SWAPE as it previously did in its August 16, 2022
expert comments, prepared a new screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the
construction and operation of the Project. (See, e.g., Exhibit 2, pp. 9-13) SWAPE prepared the
screening-level HRA to evaluate potential health risk impacts posed to residential sensitive
receptors as a result of the Project’s construction and operational TAC emissions. SWAPE used
AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a
sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages
of life based on OEHHA, CAPCOA, and VCAPCD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors.
Once again, SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located
approximately 100 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, while
utilizing the recommended age sensitivity factors, is approximately 50.3 in one million for
infants. (Id., p. 12.) SWAPE also concluded that the total excess lifetime cancer risk over the
course of Project construction and operation is approximately 59.7 in one million. (Id.)
Therefore, the cancer risk for infants and lifetime residents exceeds the VCAPCD’s threshold of
10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or
identified by the Final IS/MND. As a result, and as SAFER and SWAPE previously noted in
their original comments, an EIR is required for the Project.
In conclusion, because SWAPE’s screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant
impact, the City must prepare an EIR. This EIR should also include an HRA which makes a
reasonable effort to connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks
posed to nearby receptors. Thus, as SWAPE recommends, “an EIR should be prepared to include
a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts
associated with both Project construction and operation.” (Id., p. 13.) SWAPE’s supplemental
letter also includes several mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s potential significant
adverse air quality and health risk impacts. (Exhibit 2, pp. 15-19.)
Lastly, SWAPE’s supplemental letter also includes an analysis of the Project potential
significant energy impacts. (See, e.g., Exhibit 2, pp. 13-15.) Contrary to the Final IS/MND, the
construction of the Project could potentially cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy. (Id.)
The standard under CEQA is whether the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Failing to undertake “an investigation into
renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” violates CEQA.
(California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 213.)
8
Supplemental Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
November 2, 2022
Page 8 of 8
Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy.”
(CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1)
decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as
coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.)
Noting compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 24, part 6 (Title 24) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (Ukiah Citizens
for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-65.) Similarly, the court in
City of Woodland held unlawful an energy analysis that relied on compliance with Title 24, that
failed to assess transportation energy impacts, and that failed to address renewable energy
impacts. (25 Cal.App.4th at pp. 209-13.) As such, the Final IS/MND’s reliance on Title 24
compliance does not satisfy the requirements for an adequate discussion of the Project’s energy
impacts.
The Final IS/MND summarily concludes that the Project would not result in the
inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. There is no discussion of the
Project's cost effectiveness in terms of energy requirements. There is no discussion of energy
consuming equipment and processes that will be used during the construction or operation of the
Project, including the energy necessary to maintain freezer storage. The Project’s energy use
efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction,
operation, and maintenance were not identified. The effect of the Project on peak and base period
demands for electricity has not been addressed. As such, SWAPE concludes that the Final
IS/MND conclusions are unsupported by the necessary discussions of the Project’s energy
impacts under CEQA. (Exhibit 2, p. 14.)
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Final IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR
should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in
accordance with CEQA. We reserve the right to supplement these comments, including but not
limited to at public hearings concerning the Project. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula
Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).) Thank you for considering these
comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
9
EXHIBIT 1
10
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Shanna Farley, Principal Planner
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021 25 October 2022
RE: Pentair Warehouse Expansion
Dear Ms. Farley,
I write to reply to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (FMND) responses to
comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared
for the proposed Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project. My qualifications for preparing
replies were summarized and more details attached to my expert comment letter of 14
August 2022. The FMND includes no responses to my comments of 14 August 2022, so I
provide replies to comments provided in a 17 August 2022 comment letter from
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). My replies follow responses in the
order and numbering in which the responses appeared.
Response 6-7: “Gabbert Canyon channel is completely concrete lined and information
regarding drainage onsite is provided the Appendix I – Hydrology Report and Appendix
J – Low Impact Development Study. As noted in the Draft MND, the Project will be
required to obtain proper permits including possibly a 401 certification and/or CDFW
Streambed Alteration Agreement. In compliance with permitting requirements, and as
outlined in the Draft MND’s appendices, the Project will implement a SWPPP and BMPs
to ensure that no hazardous materials will be deposited into Gabbert Canyon Channel or
any off-site waterways.”
Reply: The response does not address the comment with sufficient detail to explain the
reasons why the comment, which raises a significant environmental issue, was rejected
by the City. I concur with CDFW that Google Earth imagery reveals a potential drainage
feature that crosses the project site. Photos 1 and 2 of my comment letter also show the
erosional gullies cutting from this drainage feature into Gabbert Canyon Channel. These
gullies reveal more about the current environmental setting than the IS/MND describes.
The Responses assurance that permits would be acquired is no substitute for accurate
characterization of the current environmental setting. A fair argument can be made for
the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately describe the feature that CDFW comments
on.
Response 6-8: “The Gabbert Canyon Channel is an entirely concrete-lined channel,
and the only impacts to the channel would be replacing a portion of the existing channel
with a reinforced concrete box culvert. The impacts would be temporary in nature, and
would not alter the flows to streams, including the Arroyo Simi. With proper permits
11
2
and authorization, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities
would be less than significant.”
Reply: The response does not address the scope of the comment and is conclusory
where it mentions Arroyo Simi Creek. CDFW raises the issue of potential project
impacts to flows to Arroyo Simi Creek, whereas the response largely addresses flows to
Gabbert Canyon Channel. The project would construct a warehouse structure onto what
Google Earth reveals as a potential natural drainage feature. The soils map shown in
Figure e of Chambers Group (2022) also reveals sandy soil extending along most of the
reach of this linear feature, further indicating it is a natural drainage feature. This
drainage feature ultimately drains into Arroyo Simi Creek. The impervious surfaces and
automobile traffic on the project site could also alter water quality of Arroyo Simi Creek.
Response 6-9: “The City has added a Condition of Approval related to obtaining a SAA
or any required permits that may be necessary due to the box culvert placement in
Gabbert Channel. With compliance with the Condition of Approval CA-5 noted below, if
a permit is required, then measures to protect jurisdictional features will be
implemented as necessary.”
Reply: CDFW specifically commented, “the CEQA document should fully identify the
potential impacts to streams or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance,
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA
Agreement.” CDFW clearly recommends completing the CEQA review, including the
provision of an accurate characterization of the current environmental setting, which is
needed for analyzing potential impacts to Arroyo Simi Creek. The potential drainage
feature on the project site should be examined and its status described in an EIR.
Responses 6-11 and 6-12: “Although the surveys were completed outside of regular
blooming times, the biologists determined that only two vegetation communities occur
on the Project site, including disturbed land and developed land; and all special status
species were considered absent from the survey area. Due to the disturbed nature of the
site, no special status species surveys were determined to be necessary.”
Reply: The response ignores CDFW’s comment that the entirety of the lot needs to be
surveyed for special-status species of plants, and not just the project footprint. The
response does not address the excellent point that CDFW makes about the need to
analyze indirect impacts to plants that occur on the same property next to the project
footprint. That part of the property composes part of the current environmental setting,
and includes blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) shrubs and other plants that have
been less suppressed by disking.
“Disturbed” and “developed land” are not plant communities; they are categories of land
condition contrived by City of Moorpark. These categories neglect the site’s soil
seedbank, and fail to inform of which plants typically emerge and bloom in spring and
summer.
12
3
According to CDFW, “Absence [of special-status species of plants] was determined
based only on literature and a review of the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB).” The response does not address this misuse of CNDDB, specifically, but more
generally reports “all special status species were considered absent from the survey
area.” Absence determinations based on CNDDB records were inappropriate, as I
commented (see below).
The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to
inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which
protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information
to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to
identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to
geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the
reconnaissance-level survey is not going to detect all of the species of plants and wildlife
that make use of the site. This step can identify those species yet to be detected at the
site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat
associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled
out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such
determinations (see below).
The IS/MND is inadequately informed by a literature and data base review. The
IS/MND inappropriately uses CNDDB to determine which species have potential to
occur in the project area. By including only species whose documented occurrences
within 5 miles of the project site can be found in CNDDB, the IS/MND screens out many
special-status species from further consideration in its characterization of the wildlife
community as a component of the baseline biological setting. CNDDB was not designed
to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a
site’s wildlife community. The IS/MND misuses CNDDB.
Chambers Group (2022) further misuses CNDDB records by incorporating them into an
assignment of occurrence likelihoods, specifically Low, Moderate and High occurrence
likelihoods. These assignments are partially based on whether CNDDB records exist
within 5 miles of the project site. CNDDB is not designed to support any occurrence
likelihood other than confirmation of presence of a species. 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.”
CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access
to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by
biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported
to CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey
outcomes reported to CNDDB. Furthermore, CNDDB is interested only in the findings
of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status
will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special
13
4
status since the inception of CNDDB. The fewer CNDDB records that will be found for
species more recently assigned special status would had nothing to do with true
geographic distributions. And because negative findings are not reported to CNDDB,
CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either.
Negative findings from CNDDB queries are inappropriate as a basis for narrowing a list
of potentially occurring species. The limitations of CNDDB are well-known, and
summarized by California Department of Fish and Wildlife in a warning presented on its
CNDDB web site (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data): “CNDDB
staff work very hard to keep the 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 statewide. Field
verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an
important obligation of our users.” The IS/MND’s use of CNDDB records to filter out
species from its characterization of the baseline biological setting is therefore
inconsistent with CNDDB’s purpose. And in fact, if CNDDB was appropriate to the task
to which Chambers Group (2022) applies it, then there would be no need for
implementation of protocol-level detection surveys for special-status species. But this is
not the case. For the above-stated reasons, Chambers Group’s (2022) list of special-
status species assessed for occurrence likelihoods is misleading and unsupported.
Assuming absence of any special-status species based on absence of CNDDB records is
inappropriate.
Response 6-13: “The comment provides recommended mitigation measures including
a survey to identify plant communities and rank the rarity of the vegetation
communities onsite. As discussed in Response to Comment 6-11 and 6-12, above, no
rare vegetation communities exist onsite and only disturbed or developed land
communities were identified on the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project was
determined to not have impacts on special status or listed plants and habitats.”
Reply: For at least 24 years leading up to January 2019, natural vegetation covered the
project site (Figure 1). Disking began after January 2019, but in March 2020 there were
at least seven blue elderberry shrubs remaining on the project site, and multiple very
large blue elderberry shrubs just off the site, a few of them on the boundary line (Figure
2). Woody debris from the elderberries was still visible on the project site on 8 August
2022, as seen in Photo 2 of my 14 August 2022 comment letter (Photo 1 below). The
remaining elderberry shrubs are large and conspicuous, and are centers of activity for
birds of multiple species (Photo 1). It is hard for me to believe the survey biologists did
not see the elderberries along the project’s border (yellow arrows in Figures 1 and 2, and
the foreground shrubs in Photo 1) and the woody debris of recently-destroyed blue
elderberries (white arrows in Figures 1 and 2 before and after the shrubs were
destroyed). I wonder why the biologists did not record the presence of blue elderberry,
and I therefore wonder which other species of plant were present but not recorded. For
example, along the eastern boundary closer to the north end, the disking had cut
through a large patch of mixed-species shrubs, some of which was elderberry, and some
of which was tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), upon which an American kestrel was
14
5
perched, and likely toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) (Photo 2). These other species of
plant along the project border should have been recorded.
Chambers Group (2022) met few of the standards of CDFW’s (2018) guidelines on
reconnaissance-level plant surveys, and did not achieve the most important standards
(Table 1). Chambers Group surveyed only once and at the wrong time of year, and they
did cover adjoining areas. As a consequence, absence determinations are unsupportable.
Figure 1. January 2019 Google Earth image of project site (left half of image) and
adjoining lot (east half of image) on which blue arrows point to the apparent drainage
feature that fans out towards the sound end of the field. Blue elderberry grew along
this drainage feature and along the feature’s southern terminus, including those later
destroyed (white arrows) and those that remained when Noriko and I visited (yellow
arrows). Those shrubs identified by the yellow arrows are also shown in Photo 1.
15
6
Figure 2. March 2021 Google Earth image of south end of proposed project site,
where white arrows point to elderberry shrubs later to be destroyed and yellow
arrows point to those that remained when Noriko and I visited, and which are shown
in Photo 1. The second white arrow from left shows a shrub chat is clearly still intact in
March 2021. The biological survey was performed on 16 December 2021.
Photo 1. Blue elderberry at the project’s southeastern boundary on 8 August 2022.
These are the same shrubs identified by yellow arrows in Figures 1 and 2. Woody
debris of what I assume is a destroyed elderberry is visible at left. Note the erosional
features cutting through the embankment of Gabbert Canyon Channel, especially the
deeper erosion gully between the woody debris and the leftmost elderberry, where
flows from the feature noted by CDFW’s comments leave the field and enter Gabbert
Canyon Channel.
16
7
Photo 2. At the eastern boundary of the project site, near the north end, is what
remains of a large cluster of shrubs composed of blue elderberry, tree tobacco upon
which an American kestrel is perched, and likely toyon at lower left of the tree tobacco,
8 August 2022. It is hard for me to believe the biologists who surveyed the site would
have failed to notice these tall, dense shrubs, so I have to conclude that they decided not
to record any plant species occurring along the project boundary. This level of
omission is inconsistent with one of CEQA’s first principles to inform of the current
environmental setting and potential project impacts.
17
8
Table 1. Assessment of whether reconnaissance-level surveys for plants achieved the standards in CDFW’s (2018)
recommended survey protocol. NA refers to Not Applicable, usually due to special-status species having not been
detected during one brief survey at the wrong time of year.
Standard in CDFW (2018)
Assessment of surveys completed
Was the
standard
met?
Qualifications
Knowledge of plant taxonomy and natural community ecology No information provided No
Familiarity with plants of the region, including special status plants No information provided No
Familiarity with natural communities of region, including sensitive natural
communities
No information provided No
Experience with the CNDDB, BIOS, and Survey of California Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Standards
No information provided No
Experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in this
document, or experience conducting such botanical field surveys under the
direction of an experienced botanical field surveyor
No information provided No
Familiarity with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
plants and plant collecting
No information provided No
Experience analyzing the impacts of projects on native plant species and
sensitive natural communities
No information provided No
Survey Preparation
Compile relevant botanical information in the general project area to provide
a regional context, i.e., data base review, and to generally identify vegetation
and habitat types potentially occurring in the project area based on biological
and physical properties (e.g., soils) of the project area
Only crudely on map of CNDDB query
output
Partial
Develop list of special status plants and sensitive natural communities with
potential to occur within the vegetation and habitat types identified (special
status plants and sensitive natural communities in a project area may not be
limited to those on the list)
Yes
Survey Design
Survey extent should cover entire project area, including areas that will be
directly or indirectly impacted by the project, and adjoining properties
Covered only the 5.65-acre project
footprint
No
18
9
Standard in CDFW (2018)
Assessment of surveys completed
Was the
standard
met?
Use systematic field techniques, e.g., parallel transects, in all habitats of the
project area to ensure thorough coverage
Surveyed “on foot” Unknown
Survey at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable,
usually during flowering or fruiting
Surveyed on 16 December 2021 No
Space (multiple) survey visits throughout the growing season to accurately
determine what plants exist in the project area
Only one survey No
When special status plants are known to occur in the type(s) of habitat
present in a project area, observe reference sites to determine whether those
plants are identifiable at the times of year the surveys take place; Describe
reference site(s), if visited, and phenological development of special status
plant(s) at those reference sites
No mention of reference site No
Survey Methods
Identify names and qualifications of botanical field surveyor(s) Names reported, but no qualifications Partial
Dates of surveys (indicating the botanical field surveyor(s) that surveyed each
area on each survey date), and total person-hours spent
Date reported; 4 person-hours Yes
Discuss survey preparation methodology No
List special status plants and sensitive natural communities with potential to
occur in the region; identify all taxa to level necessary to determine whether
they are special status
No list of sensitive natural communities
in the area
Partial
Describe and map the area surveyed relative to the project area Area survey not clearly demarked No
Reporting
Describe the proposed project Yes
Discuss all adverse conditions in the botanical survey report No mention No
Document all plant taxa observed Yes
Detailed data and maps for all special status plants and sensitive natural
communities detected
“No special status species were found” Yes
Report specific geographic locations where the special status plants and
sensitive natural communities were found, usually via GPS
NA
Site-specific characteristics of occurrences, such as associated species, habitat
and microhabitat, structure of vegetation, topographic features, soil type,
NA
19
10
Standard in CDFW (2018)
Assessment of surveys completed
Was the
standard
met?
texture, and soil parent material. If in wetland, describe direction of flow and
integrity of surface or subsurface hydrology and adjacent off-site hydrological
influences as appropriate
The number of individuals in each special status plant population as counted
(if population is small) or estimated (if population is large)
NA
Percentage of each special status plant in each life stage such as seedling,
vegetative, flowering, and fruiting
NA
Density of special status plants NA
Digital images of special status plants and sensitive natural communities in
the project area, with diagnostic features
NA
Detailed map of the project area that identifies topographic and landscape
features and includes a north arrow and bar scale
Yes
Vegetation map of project area using Survey of California Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Standards at thematic and spatial scale that
allows the display of all sensitive natural communities
“Disturbed and Developed vegetation
communities were found”
No
Soil map of the project area Yes
Describe biological setting, including all natural communities, geological and
hydrological characteristics, and land use or management history
No management history. Hydrology
described only for cement canal
No
Discuss potential for a false negative botanical field survey No
Discuss how climatic conditions may have affected survey results No
Discuss how survey timing may affect comprehensiveness No
List references used, including persons contacted and herbaria visited Yes
20
11
Response 6-14: “As discussed in Response to Comment 6-11 and 6-12, above, no rare
vegetation communities exist onsite and only disturbed or developed land communities
were identified on the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project was determined to
not have impacts on special status or listed plants and habitats.”
Reply: The response inappropriately concludes that no rare vegetation communities
exist on site, because the reconnaissance-level survey that was completed largely failed
to meet the survey standards of CDFW (2018) (Table 1).
Response 6-15: “The comment provides a recommended mitigation measure that
states that, for any impacts to any ESA/CESA listed plants and habitat, mitigation
should be incorporated to achieve no-net loss for special status plant species and the
document should include the number of plants replaced to impacted, and acres of
habitat created to impacted. As discussed in Response to Comment 6-11 and 6-12,
above, no rare vegetation communities exist onsite and only disturbed or developed
land communities were identified on the Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project
was determined to not have impacts on special status or listed plants and habitats.”
Reply: The response inappropriately concludes that no rare vegetation communities
exist on site, because the reconnaissance-level survey that was completed largely failed
to meet the survey standards of CDFW (2018) (Table 1).
Response 6-16: “This comment provides a summary of issues occurring to wildlife
including movement through the Project site and those seeking temporary refuge. The
Project is not located within mapped wildlife corridors, and no trees are present on the
Project site. In addition, the site is surrounded by development.”
Reply: On the question of whether wildlife move across the project site, which the
response says they do not because the site is not located within a mapped wildlife
corridor and is surrounded by development, my survey visit with Noriko Smallwood
identified 20 species of wildlife, all of which we witnessed moving across the site for
various reasons (see my comment letter of 14 August 2022). Two of the species we saw
were special-status species, including Cooper’s hawk and American kestrel (Birds of
Prey), both of which flew across the project site while foraging. That wildlife are present
proves that CDFW’s concern about project impacts to wildlife is valid.
The site is not surrounded by development, as the response claims. The eastern half of
the property shown in Figure 1 remains in open space, and most of the rest of the
surrounding area is in agriculture, and is therefore not developed. The underlying soils
of surrounding agriculture remain intact and uncovered by impervious surfaces, thereby
maintaining their capacities for supporting vegetation and wildlife.
That the site is not in a mapped wildlife corridor is irrelevant. As I commented in my 14
August 2022 letter, “The implied premise is that only disruption of the function of a
wildlife corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. This premise,
however, represents a false CEQA standard, and is therefore inappropriate to the
21
12
analysis. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement
regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the
proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes
an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of
anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover
and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor
et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and
staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining
stopover sites.”
Response 6-16: “to incorporate suggestions provided by CDFW, the following
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the MMRP: MM BIO-2: To avoid
direct mortality, a qualified biological monitor shall be on site prior to and during
ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way special status species
or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or Project-
related construction activities. ... MM BIO-3: Grubbing shall be done to avoid islands
of habitat where wildlife may take refuge and later be killed by heavy equipment.
Grubbing shall be done from the center of the Project site, working outward towards
adjacent habitat off site where wildlife may safety escape.”
Reply: These measures should be implemented, but I must note that much of the
vegetation, and much of the wildlife the vegetation supported, were recently destroyed
by disking (See Figures 1 and 2, and Photos 1 and 2). Long left alone, the vegetation on
the project site was disked over the last couple of years, and the blue elderberries were
removed sometime between March and December 2021. The addition of MM BIO-2 and
MM BIO-3 to the FMND would accomplish very little, because most of the harm to
wildlife of which CDFW is concerned has already been caused.
Response 6-19: “This comment states that CDFW requests to review City responses
and upcoming hearing dates associated with the Project and contact information related
to the Project. CDFW will be given a chance to review the response to comments in the
final environmental document and hearing date associated with the Project.”
Reply: I expected the same opportunity to review responses to my comments, but no
responses were provided to mine. Failure of a lead agency to respond to comments
raising significant environmental issues before approving a project frustrates CEQA’s
informational purpose and may render the EIR legally insufficient.”1
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
1 Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615; Rural Landowners
Association v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020.
22
13
REFERENCES CITED
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and
evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural
communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
Chambers Group. 2022. Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment for the
Pentair Expansion Project. Letter to City of Moorpark.
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.
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.
23
EXHIBIT 2
24
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
November 2, 2022
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project (SCH No. 2022070289)
Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the September 2022 Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (“FMND”) and July 2022
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
(“Project”) located in the City of Moorpark (“City”). Upon review, we find that the FMND is insufficient in
addressing our concerns regarding the Project’s health risk impacts. Furthermore, our review concludes
that the FMND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and energy impacts. As we asserted
in our August 16th comment letter, an EIR should be prepared to adequately evaluate the Project’s
potential impacts on the environment.
Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
The FMND’s revised air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with the California Emissions
Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 47).1 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
1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available
at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
25
2
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 Emissions Model
Output (“AQ Report”) and Greenhouse Gas Model Output (“GHG Report”) as Appendix A and G,
respectively, to the FMND, we found that several model inputs are not consistent with information
disclosed in the FMND and IS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction- and operational-related
emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that
adequately evaluates the impacts that Project construction and operation would have on local and
regional air quality. Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural Coating Emission Factors
Review of the revised CalEEMod output files, provided as Appendix A and G to the FMND, demonstrates
that the “Pentair Warehouse Expansion” model includes several reductions to the default architectural
coating emission factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 130, 156; Appendix G, pp. 348).
As demonstrated above, the nonresidential exterior, interior, and parking architectural coating emission
factors are each reduced from their default values of 100- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”). As previously
mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.2 According
to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes
is:
“Pursuant to VCAPCD Rule 74.2 Paint VOC set to 50 g/L.” (Appendix A, pp. 129, 155; Appendix G,
pp. 347).
Furthermore, regarding compliance with Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (“VCAPCD”) Rule
74.2, the FMND states:
“In order to account for VCAPCD’s Rule 74.2, the ROC content of architectural coatings was
changed to 50 grams per liter in CalEEMod” (p. 54).
However, these changes remain unsupported, as we cannot verify the accuracy of the revised
architectural coating emission factors based on VCAPCD Rule 74.2 alone. The VCAPCD Rule 74.2 Table 2:
Coating VOC Limits provides the required VOC limits (grams of VOC per liter of coating) for 45 different
coating categories.3 The VOC limits for each coating varies from a minimum value of 50 g/L to a
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. 1, 14.
3 Rule 74.2 – Architectural Coatings.” VCAPCD, November 2020, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/Rulebook/Reg4/RULE%2074.2.pdf.
26
3
maximum value of 730 g/L. As such, we cannot verify that VCAPCD Rule 74.2 substantiates reductions to
the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating will be used. As
the FMND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the use of a specific type of coating, we
are unable to verify the revised emission factors included in the model.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural coating emission
factors to calculate the Project’s volatile organic compound (“VOC”) emissions.4 Thus, by including
unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors, the model may
underestimate the Project’s construction-related VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to
determine Project significance.
Incorrect Application of Tier 4 Mitigation Measure
Review of the revised CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Pentair Warehouse Expansion”
model assumes that the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4 Interim
emissions standards (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 130, 156; Appendix G, pp. 348):
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be
justified.5 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification
provided for these changes is:
“Per PDF 1, all off-road equipment greater than 50 hp used during construction shall meet EPA
Tier 4 emission standards” (Appendix A, pp. 129, 155; Appendix G, pp. 347).
Furthermore, the FMND states:
“According to the Project applicant, all off-road construction equipment that is greater than 50
horsepower that would be used during construction of the Project would meet or exceed the
EPA’s Tier 4 interim emission standards, which was inputted into the CalEEMod model. Project
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. 35, 40.
5 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14.
27
4
Design Feature 1 has been incorporated into this analysis in order to ensure compliance with
this measure” (p. 54).
However, the assumption that the Project’s off-road construction equipment fleet would meet Tier 4
interim emissions standards remains unsupported, as the FMND and associated documents fail to
explicitly require these standards through a formal mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to
the Association of Environmental Professionals (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on mitigation measures:
“While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address
environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the
MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the
design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for
someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project
that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting
environmental impact” (emphasis added).6
As you can see in the excerpt above, Project design features that are not formally included in the
mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) may be eliminated from the Project’s design
altogether. Thus, as the use of construction equipment with Tier 4 interim emissions standards is not
formally included as a mitigation measure, we cannot guarantee that these standards would be
implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Thus, the model’s assumption that the off-
road construction equipment fleet would adhere to Tier 4 interim emissions standards is incorrect. Failure to Adequately Mitigate Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Regarding the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with Project construction, the FMND states:
“As detailed in the VCAPCD Guidelines, the VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds
for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); and the 25-pound-per-day threshold for ROG and NOx
does not apply to construction emissions since the emissions are temporary. However, the
VCAPCD indicates that a project that may generate fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as
to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons, or
which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person, or which may
cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property would have
a significant air quality impact.
In order to reduce air quality impacts from construction activities, the VCAPCD requires that all
projects minimize construction emissions through adherence to the VCAPCD Rule 55 fugitive
dust control measures and minimize ROG through adherence to the VCAPCD Rule 74.2
architectural coating VOC content limits. Compliance with VCAPCD Rules 55 and 74.2 would
ensure that construction emissions would not be generated in such quantities as to cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or that may
6 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6.
28
5
endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public. Therefore, a
less than significant air quality impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project”
(p. 55).
As demonstrated above, the FMND claims that the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
(“VCAPCD”) significant thresholds do not apply to construction emissions, and that the VCAPCD only
requires adherence to Rules 55 and 74.2. However, this is incorrect. According to VCAPCD Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines:
“Construction-related emissions (including portable engines and portable engine-driven
equipment subject to the ARB’s Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program, and used
for construction operations or repair and maintenance activities) of ROC and NOx are not
counted towards the two significance thresholds, since these emissions are temporary.
However, construction-related emissions should be mitigated if estimates of ROC and NOx
emissions from the heavy-duty construction equipment anticipated to be used for a particular
project exceed the 5 pounds per day threshold in the Ojai Planning Area, or the 25 pounds per
day threshold in the remainder of the county. Mitigation measures to reduce such emissions are
listed in Section 7.4.3, “ROC and NOx Construction Mitigation Measures” and in the mitigation
module of URBEMIS” (emphasis added).7
As previously discussed, the FMND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality impacts.
Therefore, we maintain that the IS/MND’s analysis of construction-related emissions is accurate, and
that the VOC and NOX emissions associated with Project construction exceed the VCAPCD threshold of
25 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see excerpt below) (p. 18, Table 4).
As demonstrated above, the Project’s construction-related VOC and NOx emissions each exceed the
applicable VCAPCD threshold of 25 lbs/day. As such, the FMND is required to incorporate the following
measures pursuant to VCAPCD Guidelines Section 7.4.3:
“As discussed in Chapter 5, Estimating Ozone Precursor Emissions, ozone precursor emissions
from construction vehicles can be substantial. However, there are very few feasible measures
available to reduce these emissions. APCD recommends the following measures to mitigate
ozone precursor emissions from construction motor vehicles:
7 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” October 2003, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 5-3 – 5-4.
29
6
1. Minimize equipment idling time.
2. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per
manufacturers’ specifications.
3. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October), to
minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
4. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible.”8
Thus, until the FMND incorporates the above-mentioned mitigation, the IS/MND’s air quality analysis,
and subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, should not be relied upon. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
As discussed in our August 16th comment letter, the IS/MND failed to adequately evaluate the Project’s
potential health risk impacts. Review of the FMND again demonstrates a failure to adequately evaluate
the Project’s potential health risk impacts. As such, we find the FMND to be inadequate and maintain
that the IS/MND’s less-than-significant impact conclusion regarding the Project’s health risk impact
should not be relied upon.
First, regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project construction, the FMND states:
“Construction of the Proposed Project would generate TAC emissions from the onsite operation
of diesel-powered equipment in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Given the
relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances to the
nearby sensitive receptors that construction equipment would operate, and the short-term
construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years)
substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.
In addition, CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road
diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five
minutes and requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual
reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic
upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet; currently, no commercial operator is allowed
to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment; and by January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed
to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators
need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between
years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, less-than-significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts
would occur during construction of the Proposed Project” (p. 71, 72).
As demonstrated above, the FMND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant
construction-related health risk impact because the short-term construction duration, limited amount of
heavy-duty equipment, distance from sensitive receptors, and compliance with applicable regulations
8 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” October 2003, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 7-8.
30
7
would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. Regarding the health risk
impacts associated with the Project operation, the FMND states:
“Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas; and,
according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition prepared by
CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals
in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been listed as carcinogens by State
Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program.
According to the Project Description (Section 1.3.2 Operations), the Proposed Project would
generate 12 truck deliveries between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and 6 truck deliveries between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or approximately 18 truck deliveries per day. According to the Health
Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects prepared by CAPCOA, July 2009, a truck
distribution facility that accommodates 100 or more truck deliveries per day has the potential to
create significant health risks from TAC emissions. Since the Proposed Project would generate
less than a fifth of the truck deliveries that CAPCOA found would have the potential to create
significant health risks, a less than significant TAC impact would occur during the on-going
operations of the Proposed Project; and no mitigation would be required” (p. 72).
As demonstrated above, the FMND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant
operational health risk impact because the proposed Project would not generate more than 100 truck
trips per day. However, the FMND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as
the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.
First, the FMND indicates that the Project is exempt from the preparation of an HRA according to
CAPCOA, as the proposed warehouse building would not generate more than 100 truck deliveries per
day. This is incorrect, as the above-referenced CAPCOA guidance is in reference to the recommended
preparation of an HRA for the development of a new receptor, not for a new source. Specifically,
CAPCOA states:
“Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that
accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport
refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).”9
As demonstrated above, the correct use of this guidance would be to avoid locating new residential
developments within 1,000-feet of an existing distribution center. As such, the FMND’s conclusion that
the Project is exempt from the preparation of an HRA is based on an incorrect interpretation of CAPCOA
guidance and should not be relied upon.
Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent
with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality
9“Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf, p. 9, Table 2.
31
8
impacts to likely health consequences.”10 This poses a problem, as according to the IS/MND,
construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction
equipment over a duration of approximately 12 months (p. 6). Furthermore, according to the Traffic and
Circulation Study, provided as Appendix K to the IS/MND, operation of the Project is expected to
generate 216 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to
expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 9, Table 3). However, the FMND and
associated documents fail to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and
operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects.
Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health
risks posed to nearby receptors, the FMND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-
generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.
Third, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that warehouse projects prepare a
quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the
organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air
district guidelines.11 In February 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. This guidance document describes the
types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all
short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.12 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the
project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed
to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”13
Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month
requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a
quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 12-month construction
period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to
estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).14 While the
FMND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the
Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds
the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-
year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect
10 “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.
11 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.
12 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
14 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4.
32
9
the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis
of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.
Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or
operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the FMND fails to compare the Project’s excess
cancer risk to the VCAPCD specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.15 Thus, in accordance with the
most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result
of Project construction and operation should be conducted. As such, we reiterate our February 16th
comment that the IS/MND’s and FMND’s less-than-significant health risk impact conclusion should not
be relied upon. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact
In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening
level air quality dispersion model.16 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the
OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the
appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).17, 18 A Level 2
HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind
concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an
unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling
approach should be completed prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to
residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the FMND’s CalEEMod
output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure
begins during the third trimester stage of life.19 The FMND’s CalEEMod model indicates that
construction activities will generate approximately 202 pounds of DPM over the 362-day construction
period.20 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum
downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability
in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission
rate by the following equation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 201.9 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸362 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
15 “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.
16 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf
17 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
18 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.
19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
20 See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
33
10
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00293 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 362-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed
that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational
DPM for an additional 29.01 years. The FMND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that
operational activities will generate approximately 6 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.
Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following
emission rate for Project operation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 5.9 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸=𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.0000849 g/s. Construction and
operation were simulated as a 5.65-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate
dimensions of 214- by 107-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the
height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical
dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction
distribution. The population of Moorpark was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.21
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the
annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour
concentration by 10% in screening procedures.22 According to the IS/MND the nearest sensitive
receptors are single-family homes located adjacent to the Project site (p. 19). However, review of the
AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 100 meters from the
Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is
approximately 4.632 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour
concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.4632 µg/m3 for Project
construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN
is 0.1342 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour
concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.01342 µg/m3 for Project
operation at the MEIR.
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA, as recommended by VCAPCD.23 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air
Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-
point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to
account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess
21 “Moorpark.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0649138.
22 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October
1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf.
23 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, October
2003, available at: http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 6-6 – 6-8.
34
11
risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the
daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of
time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our
screening-level HRA are as follows:
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk
Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)24
Age
Sensitivity
Factor 25
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home 26
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)27
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to
effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the
cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day
(mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the
following dose algorithm: 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝= 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝× 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day)
A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:
24 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
25 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3.
26 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5, Table 8.4.
27 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.
35
12
𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴= 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1
ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only)
ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years)
Consistent with the 362-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for
construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), and the first 0.74 years of
the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for
the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.26 years of the infantile
stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our
calculations are shown in the table below.
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration
(ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.4632 5.35E-06
Construction 0.74 0.4632 4.80E-05
Operation 1.26 0.0134 2.36E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 5.03E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0134 3.50E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0134 5.39E-07
Lifetime 30 5.97E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants,
children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project
construction and operation, are approximately 5.35, 50.3, 3.5, and 0.539 in one million, respectively.
The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 59.7 in one
million. The infant and lifetime cancer risks exceed the VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million, thus
resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the FMND.
36
13
Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on
the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential
link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments
iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and
refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.
EPA, 1992).
In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default
values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier)
of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).
The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening-
level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and
exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.”
As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling
approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project
could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined
health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both
Project construction and operation.
Energy Failure to Adequately Evaluate Energy Impacts
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix F:
“The goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. The means of
achieving this goal include:
(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption,
(2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil, and
(3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
In order to assure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, the California
Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy
impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient,
wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy.”28
28 “APPENDIX F: ENERGY CONSERVATION.” CEQA Guidelines Appendices, 2016, available at:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2016_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines_Appendix_F.pdf, p.
276.
37
14
However, in order to conclude a less-than-significant energy impact, the FMND simply states that
Project compliance with Title 24 standards would prevent the Project from resulting in an inefficient,
wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Specifically, the FMND states:
“At should also be noted that the proposed structures will be required to meet the 2019 Title 24
Part 6 building standards that require the proposed warehouse to install enhanced insulation as
well as energy-efficient lighting and appliances” (p. 58).
As such, the FMND concludes:
“The Project would impact energy resources during construction and operation, but these
impacts would be less than significant. Energy resources that would potentially be impacted
include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuel supplies and distribution systems. This
analysis includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the Project with particular
emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of
energy” (p. 80).
However, noting compliance with the Title 24 standards does not constitute an adequate analysis of
energy. According to Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, the court
ruled:
“With respect to the analysis of operational and construction energy use of the project, the
court found that the City of Woodland’s reliance on mitigation measures that required
compliance with title 24 and other California green building codes did not meet the
requirements of appendix F.”29
As demonstrated above, simply complying with Title 24 standards does not meet the requirements of
CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. As such, the Project’s energy analysis is insufficient and the FMND’s less-
than-significant impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Furthermore, according to Ukiah Citizens
for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, the court ruled:
“First, when the [Project] analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant
effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the
project. (Guidelines, § 15126.2, subdivision (b).) The [Project]’s determination of whether the
potential impact is significant is to be based on this discussion.”30
29 “Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256.” Court Of Appeal Of The State Of
California First Appellate District Division Three, available at:
https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1805/Ukiah%20Citizens%20for%20Safety%20First%20v.%20City%20of%20Ukiah
%20(1st%20Dist.%202016)%20248%20Cal.App.4th%20256.PD, p. 7.
30 “League To Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation V. County Of Placer (2022) 248 Cal.App.5th
63.” Court Of Appeal Of The State Of California First Appellate District Division Three, available at:
https://www.manatt.com/Manatt/media/Documents/Articles/C087102.PDF, p. 121.
38
15
As demonstrated above, prior to approval, the FMND should evaluate if renewable energy features
could be feasibly incorporated into the Project. Therefore, we propose that the FMND should analyze
the feasibility of implementing the measures listed below in the section titled Feasible Mitigation
Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.
Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
As discussed in our August 16th comment letter, our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result
in potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in
an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable
to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in CAPCOA’s Quantifying
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, which attempt to reduce GHG levels, as well as reduce criteria air
pollutants such as particulate matter emissions.31 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions,
consideration of the following measures should be made.
• Energy-related mitigation:
o Install programmable thermostat timers
o Establish onsite renewable energy systems, including solar power and wind power
o Limit outdoor lighting requirements
o Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting by utilizing design features such as limiting the
hours of operation of outdoor lighting.
o Provide education on energy efficiency to residents, customers, and/or tenants. Provide
information on energy management services for large energy users.
o Meet “reach” goals for building energy efficiency and renewable energy use.
o Limit the use of outdoor lighting to only that needed for safety and security purposes.
o Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.
o Include energy storage where appropriate to optimize renewable energy generation
systems and avoid peak energy use.
o Prohibit gas powered landscape equipment and implement electric yard equipment
compatibility
• Transportation-related mitigation:
o Provide 100% EV parking
o Require residential area parking permits
o Implement ride-sharing, vanpool, shuttle, bike-sharing programs
o Provide bike parking near transit
o Provide local shuttles
o Implement area or cordon pricing
o Install a park-and-ride lot
• Water-related mitigation:
31 http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf
39
16
o Install an infiltration basin to provide an opportunity for 100% of the storm water to
infiltrate on-site.
o Install a system to reutilize gray water
o Use locally-sourced water supply
o Plant native and drought-resistant trees and vegetation
• Develop and follow a “green streets guide” that requires:
o Use of minimal amounts of concrete and asphalt;
o Use of groundcovers rather than pavement to reduce heat reflection.32
• Implement Project design features such as:
o Shade HVAC equipment from direct sunlight;
o Install high-albedo white thermoplastic polyolefin roof membrane;
o Install formaldehyde-free insulation; and
o Use recycled-content gypsum board.
o Require all buildings to become “LEED” and “WELL” certified.
• Plant low-VOC emitting shade trees, e.g., in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
Furthermore, the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report includes various
feasible mitigation measures that would reduce on-site area emissions that are applicable to the
proposed Project’s retail land use, and include, but are not limited to:33
• Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized.
• Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution
system.
• Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows.
• Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed.
Finally, additional feasible mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse
Project Best Practices document.34 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the
following measures should be made:
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
32 Cool Houston Plan;
http://www.harcresearch.org/sites/default/files/documents/projects/CoolHoustonPlan_0.pdf
33 Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Kimball Business Park Project Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2016.
34 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6 – 9.
40
17
• Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for
electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools
whenever feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.
• Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for
particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes.
• Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all
equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission
control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to
identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
• Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile
organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction
employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for
construction employees.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions
equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13,
Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site
demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection
by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission
beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary
electrical charging stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business
operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off
engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery
areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air
district, and the building manager.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air
filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the
project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air
monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project,
and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not
41
18
mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the
affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid
exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the
project.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the
warehouse use could include refrigeration.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking
spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation
capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-
occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation,
including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated
parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
• Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project
area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel
technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also
require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make
records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay
program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
• Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and
Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and
operation.
Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon
resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31,
2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until
the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should
not be approved.
42
19
As discussed in our August 16th comment letter, we maintain that an EIR should be prepared to include
all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality, health risk, and energy analyses
to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below
thresholds. The 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.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul Rosenfeld CV
43
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.1018 Total DPM (lbs)201.9265753 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.00295
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.557808219 Total DPM (g)91593.89458 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.016164384
Construction Duration (days)362 Emission Rate (g/s)0.002928493 Total DPM (lbs)5.9
Total DPM (lbs)201.9265753 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)8.4863E-05
Total DPM (g)91593.89458 Total Acreage 5.65 Release Height (meters)3
Start Date 1/1/2023 Max Horizontal (meters)213.84 Total Acreage 5.65
End Date 12/29/2023 Min Horizontal (meters)106.92 Max Horizontal (meters)213.84
Construction Days 362 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)106.92
Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5
Population 35,975 Setting Urban
Start Date 1/1/2023 Population 35,975
End Date 12/29/2023
Total Construction Days 362
Total Years of Construction 0.99
Total Years of Operation 29.01
Construction Operation
2023 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
44
Start date and time 08/11/22 12:09:04
AERSCREEN 21112
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Construction
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.293E‐02 g/s 0.232E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 213.84 meters 701.57 feet
Area Source Width: 106.92 meters 350.79 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode:URBAN
Population:35975
Dist to Ambient Air:1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Attachment B
45
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
46
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
47
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 08/11/22 12:13:25
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
48
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
49
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
50
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
51
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
52
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
53
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
54
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
55
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
56
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
57
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 08/11/22 12:13:36
REFINE started 08/11/22 12:13:36
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
58
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 08/11/22 12:13:37
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 08/11/22 12:13:39
59
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV
ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT
0.35387E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38781E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41721E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44205E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46322E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.46908E+01 108.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41937E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29347E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23714E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20210E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17504E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15359E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13632E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12208E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11026E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10028E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91689E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84368E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.77964E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72351E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.67412E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.63004E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.59104E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55628E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52425E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49541E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
60
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46933E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44565E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42401E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40391E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38547E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36836E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35255E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33791E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32433E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31170E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29978E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28864E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27822E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26844E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25927E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25063E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24250E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23476E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22744E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22052E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21396E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20774E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20176E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19608E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19067E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18552E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18061E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
61
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17595E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17147E+00 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16719E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16308E+00 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15916E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15540E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15179E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14833E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14501E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14182E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13874E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13579E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13292E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13016E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12750E+00 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12493E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12246E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12005E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11772E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11547E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11329E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11118E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10914E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10717E+00 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10526E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10341E+00 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10161E+00 1950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
62
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99869E-01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99237E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97563E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.95937E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.94357E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.92822E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91330E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89878E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.88466E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.87092E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.85755E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84453E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83185E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.81949E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.80745E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.79571E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.78427E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.77310E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.76221E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.75158E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.74120E-01 2475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.73108E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72118E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.71152E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.70208E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.69286E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68384E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
63
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.67502E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.66640E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.65797E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64972E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64165E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.63375E-01 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.62602E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.61845E-01 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.61104E-01 2850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.60377E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.59666E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58969E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58286E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.57617E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56961E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56318E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55687E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55068E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.54462E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53866E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53282E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52709E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52146E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.51594E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.51051E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50519E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49996E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
64
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49482E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48978E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48482E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47995E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47516E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47045E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46583E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46128E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45681E-01 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45242E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44810E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44384E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43966E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43555E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43150E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42751E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42359E-01 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41974E-01 3750.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41594E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41220E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40852E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40489E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40132E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39781E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39435E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39093E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38757E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
65
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38426E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38100E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37779E-01 4050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37462E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37150E-01 4100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36843E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36539E-01 4150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36240E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35946E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35655E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35368E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35086E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34807E-01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34532E-01 4325.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34261E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33994E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33730E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33469E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33212E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32959E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32709E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32462E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32218E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-01 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31740E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31506E-01 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31274E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
66
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31046E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30820E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30597E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30377E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30160E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29945E-01 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29733E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29524E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29317E-01 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29113E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28911E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28711E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28514E-01 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28319E-01 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
67
Start date and time 08/11/22 12:14:16
AERSCREEN 21112
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Operation
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Operation
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.849E‐04 g/s 0.674E‐03 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 213.84 meters 701.57 feet
Area Source Width: 106.92 meters 350.79 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 35975
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
68
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
69
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
70
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 08/11/22 12:19:27
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
71
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
72
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
73
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
74
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
75
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
76
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
77
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
78
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
79
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
80
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 08/11/22 12:19:38
REFINE started 08/11/22 12:19:38
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
81
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 08/11/22 12:19:39
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 08/11/22 12:19:40
82
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV
ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT
0.10254E+00 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11238E+00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12090E+00 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12809E+00 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13423E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.13593E+00 108.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12152E+00 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.85039E-01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68718E-01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58562E-01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50721E-01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44506E-01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39502E-01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35377E-01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31951E-01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29058E-01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26569E-01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24448E-01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22592E-01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20965E-01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19534E-01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18257E-01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17127E-01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16120E-01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15191E-01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14356E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
83
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13600E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12914E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12287E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11704E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11170E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10674E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10216E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97917E-02 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.93982E-02 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.90322E-02 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.86870E-02 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83641E-02 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.80620E-02 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.77787E-02 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.75128E-02 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72627E-02 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.70270E-02 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68027E-02 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.65906E-02 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.63900E-02 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.62000E-02 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.60197E-02 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58465E-02 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56819E-02 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55252E-02 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53760E-02 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52337E-02 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
84
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50986E-02 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49688E-02 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48447E-02 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47257E-02 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46120E-02 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45031E-02 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43986E-02 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42983E-02 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42020E-02 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41095E-02 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40204E-02 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39347E-02 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38518E-02 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37718E-02 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36947E-02 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36202E-02 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35484E-02 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34786E-02 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34111E-02 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33459E-02 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32828E-02 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32218E-02 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31627E-02 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31055E-02 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30500E-02 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29965E-02 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29445E-02 1950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
85
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28939E-02 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28756E-02 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28271E-02 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27800E-02 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27342E-02 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26897E-02 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26465E-02 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26044E-02 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25635E-02 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25237E-02 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24850E-02 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24472E-02 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24105E-02 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23747E-02 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23398E-02 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23058E-02 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22726E-02 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22402E-02 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22087E-02 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21779E-02 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21478E-02 2475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21185E-02 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20898E-02 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20618E-02 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20344E-02 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20077E-02 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19816E-02 2625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
86
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19560E-02 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19311E-02 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19066E-02 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18827E-02 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18593E-02 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18364E-02 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18140E-02 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17921E-02 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17706E-02 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17496E-02 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17290E-02 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17088E-02 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16890E-02 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16696E-02 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16506E-02 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16319E-02 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16137E-02 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15957E-02 3074.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15781E-02 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15609E-02 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15440E-02 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15274E-02 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15111E-02 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14951E-02 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14793E-02 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14639E-02 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14488E-02 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
87
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14339E-02 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14192E-02 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14049E-02 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13908E-02 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13769E-02 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13633E-02 3450.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13498E-02 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13367E-02 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13237E-02 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13110E-02 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12985E-02 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12861E-02 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12740E-02 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12621E-02 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12504E-02 3675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12388E-02 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12275E-02 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12163E-02 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12053E-02 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11944E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11838E-02 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11733E-02 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11629E-02 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11527E-02 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11427E-02 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11328E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11231E-02 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
88
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11135E-02 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11040E-02 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10947E-02 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10856E-02 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10765E-02 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10676E-02 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10588E-02 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10502E-02 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10416E-02 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10332E-02 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10249E-02 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10167E-02 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10086E-02 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10006E-02 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99280E-03 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.98504E-03 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97740E-03 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.96985E-03 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.96241E-03 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.95506E-03 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.94781E-03 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.94066E-03 4525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.93360E-03 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.92662E-03 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91974E-03 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91295E-03 4625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.90625E-03 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
89
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89962E-03 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89308E-03 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.88663E-03 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.88025E-03 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.87396E-03 4775.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.86774E-03 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.86159E-03 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.85553E-03 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84953E-03 4875.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84361E-03 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83776E-03 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83198E-03 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.82627E-03 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.82062E-03 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
90
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation,
stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and
Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional
Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with
EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major
military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic
characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE,
Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include
consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from
industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
Attachment C
91
2
•Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
•Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
•Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
•Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
•Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
•Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
•Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports
and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard
to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead
agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks
and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from
toxins and Valley Fever.
•Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial
facilities.
•Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA
compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
•Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
•Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
•Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
•Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
•Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
•Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
92
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
93
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
94
5
principles into the policy‐making process.
•Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
•Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
•Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
•Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
•Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
•Conducted aquifer tests.
•Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
•At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
•Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
•Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California
where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
95
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.
96
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
97
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.
98
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks,
storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil
drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and
modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in
surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by
water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote,
perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates
(MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from
various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the
evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist
at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert
witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an
expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad,
agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment D
99
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.
100
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.
101
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
102
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.
103
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.
104
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.
105
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
106
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
107
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
108
EXHIBIT 3
109
September 27, 2022
Via E-mail
Leanne Alva, Commissioner
Chris Barrett, Commissioner
Jeff Brodsly, Commissioner
Kipp Landis, Commissioner
Bruce Rokos, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Ave.
Moorpark, CA 93021
planning@moorparkca.gov
Freddy A. Carrillo, Associate Planner II
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
fcarrillo@moorparkca.gov
Shanna Farley, Principal Planner
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
sfarley@moorparkca.gov
Re: Comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Pentair
Warehouse Expansion Project, Planning Commission September 27, 2022
Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners Alva, Barrett, Brodsly, Landis, and Rokos, Ms. Farley,
and Mr. Carrillo:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
(“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), SCH
No. 2022070289, prepared for the Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project, including all actions
related or referring to the proposed construction of a 90,566-square-foot industrial building for
Pentair Pool Products located at 10941 Los Angeles Avenue, Moorpark, California (Assessor’s
Parcel Number 511-0-200-265) (“Project”), to be heard as Agenda Item 8.A at the September 27,
2022 Planning Commission Meeting.
After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational
document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental
impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Moorpark prepare an environmental impact report
(“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public
Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21000, et seq.
110
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
This comment has been prepared with the assistance of expert wildlife biologist Dr.
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection
Enterprise (“SWAPE”). Dr. Smallwood’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit
A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE’s comment and
curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its
entirety.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project involves an Industrial Planned
Development Permit (IPD) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to develop a 90,566 square-foot
industrial building and associated site improvements on 5.65 acres of vacant land adjacent and
directly to the east of the existing facility located at 10951 Los Angeles Avenue in Moorpark,
Ventura County, California. (IS/MND, p. 1.) The Amir Development Company is the developer
and has submitted applications for the IPD and CUP for the proposed Project on behalf of the
applicant Moorpark Lot A, LP. (Id.)
Of the 90,566 square footage, 3,000 square feet is planned for office space and 87,566
square feet for warehousing. The building is proposed to be a one-story building, approximately
44 feet in height, as a Type III-B concrete tilt-up structure. (Id., p. 5.) The Applicant is proposing
21 truck-loading spaces with 3 grade-level doors and 185 parking spaces, including 6 accessible
stalls, 137 standard stalls, 19 electric vehicle (EV) stalls, and 23 clean air/van pool stalls. (Id.)
According to the IS/MND, Pentair Pool Products (“Pentair”) is the intended occupant of
the Project. (Id., p. 1.) Pentair is the largest producer of consumer and commercial pool
equipment within the United States and has conducted business in the city of Moorpark since
1987. (Id.) The IS/MND states that Pentair is also the largest employer for the city, providing
approximately 700 jobs at the time that the draft IS/MND was published in July 2022. (IS/MND,
p. 1.) According to the IS/MND, the reasoning for the Project is due to Pentair having outgrown
its 234,000-square-foot existing building and is seeking to expand its operation with an
additional building within Moorpark. (Id.) The proposed industrial building will be occupied by
Pentair for warehousing and storage of raw material and distribution of finished goods including
pool equipment and accessories.
The Project site is located on the north side of California State Route 118 (Los Angeles
Avenue) and east of Montair Drive. (Id.) The site is adjacent to an industrial building operated by
Pentair, a vacant lot to the east, and agricultural uses to the south and north of the Project site.
(Id.) The Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way is also located to the north of the subject property.
(Id.)
The City of Moorpark (“City”) is the lead agency for the Proposed Project. The City finds
that the IS has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (PRC § 21000 et seq.) and CEQA
Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [“CCR”], § 15000 et seq.), and has
111
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
determined that preparation of an MND would be appropriate under CEQA. We believe the
City’s findings are incorrect and that an EIR should be prepared.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a
nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the
project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an
EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th
310, 319–20 [“CBE v. SCAQMD”] [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d
68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d
491, 504-505].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068;
see also, 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the
CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13
Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the
act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the
reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency
(2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 [“CBE v. CRA”].)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of
Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 [“Bakersfield Citizens”]; Pocket Protectors v.
City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm
bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes
before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124
Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to
“demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered
the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment
but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.)
An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC §
21080(d); see also, Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances,
an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement
briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR §
15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant
environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . .
. has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to
dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases
where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v.
San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an
112
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
environmental document under CEQA. The MND must “separately identify and analyze the
significance of the impacts … before proposing mitigation measures….” (Lotus vs. Department
of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658.) A “mitigation measure” is a measure
designed to minimize a project’s significant environmental impacts, (PRC § 21002.1(a)), while a
“project” is defined as including “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in
either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) Unlike mitigation measures, project
elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not
technically “mitigation” under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize
“significant” impacts. (PRC § 21100(b)(3).)
To ensure that the project’s potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and
disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth,
mitigation measures that are not included in the project’s design should not be treated as part of
the project description. (Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8.) Mischaracterization of a
mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is “significant,” and therefore amounts
to a material error, “when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s
environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.” (Mission Bay Alliance v.
Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.)
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated
negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially
significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on
the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
environment.” (PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130
Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant
effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124
Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland
(1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.)
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the
record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary
evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124
Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th
1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental
review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of
exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)
The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard
accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
113
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally
followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies
weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance
of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the
lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better
argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.
(Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the CEQA, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2021).) The Courts have
explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts
owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for
resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928
[emphasis in original].)
CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s
environmental setting or “baseline.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is
the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts.
(CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent
part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the
vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is
commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental
setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead
Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
(See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25
(“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must
be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted
levels. (Id. at 121-23.)
III. DISCUSSION
A. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS REQUIRING AN EIR.
Expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concluded that the Project may
have significant impacts on several special-status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these
impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions were informed by the site visit he conducted with wildlife
biologist Noriko Smallwood in August 2022. Dr. Smallwood and Noriko Smallwood visited the
site of the proposed Project for 2.5 hours from 06:09 to 08:39 hours on August 8, 2022. Dr.
Smallwood’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
114
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
1. The Wildlife Baseline Relied upon by the IS/MND is Woefully Inadequate.
Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood’s review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project
concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special-status species. An
EIR is required to analyze these impacts.
According to the IS/MND and the Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment
(“BRRA”), included as Appendix B to the IS/MND, a search of the California Natural Diversity
Database (“CNDDB”) identified 38 special-status species as having the potential to occur
within the Project site. (IS/MND, p. 23.) Regardless, the IS/MND and BRRA incorrectly
concluded that the Project’s impacts to protected species will be less than significant because:
“none of the [38 special-status] species were found on site, and necessary habitat does not
occur on site. Therefore, all potential special status plant and animal species are considered
absent from the survey area.” (Id. [emphasis added].) However, as Dr. Smallwood points out,
the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate Project impacts to special-status species.
(See, e.g., Ex. A, pp. 1-20.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that “[a] fair argument can be made for the
need to prepare an EIR that is better informed by biological resources surveys and by appropriate
interpretation of survey outcomes for the purpose of characterizing the wildlife community as
part of the current environmental setting.” (Id., p. 10.)
The IS/MND’s baseline for biological impacts is inadequate, incomplete, and understates
the biological values at the Project site for several reasons. (See, Ex. A, pp. 10-20.) First, the
IS/MND improperly relies on a single reconnaissance-level survey that was insufficient and
conducted using minimal effort. According to the IS/MND and BRRA, a reconnaissance-level
survey was conducted by Chambers Group in December 2021. (IS/MND, Appendix B, p. 2.)
Two biologists walked over the site for 2 hours, from 10:30 to 12:30, on December 16, 2021.
(Id.) Chambers Group (2022) performed wildlife surveys “to document existing vegetation
communities, identify special status species with a potential for occurrence, and map habitats
that could support special status wildlife species….” (Id., p. 1.) The IS/MND reports that “none
of the [38 special-status] species were found on site.” (IS/MND, p. 23.) However, Dr.
Smallwood notes that Chambers Group’s reported finding is inadequate because it was “reported
out of context” and based on an “insufficient survey effort committed to the site.” (Ex. A, p. 13.)
As Dr. Smallwood notes, “Chambers Group reports no standards related to how special-status
species are identified with potential for occurrence, nor how habitats are mapped nor how
mapped habitats are assessed for their potential to support special-status species of wildlife.”
(Ex. A, p. 13.) Therefore, Dr. Smallwood states that “it should be of no surprise that special-
status species were undetected during a brief reconnaissance-level survey. Chambers Group
reports a factual survey outcome of little if any informative value.” (Id.) Consequently, whether
the BRA is substantial evidence is not apparent from the face of the document or the IS/MND.
Second, the IS/MND and BRRA misuse the CNDDB. (Ex. A, pp. 13-15.) When
discussing that the CNDDB search yielded 38 special-status species with occurrences that
overlapped the biological survey area, “[t]he IS/MND inappropriately uses [CNDDB] to
determine which species have potential to occur in the project area.” (Id., p. 14; see also,
115
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
IS/MND, p. 23.) As Dr. Smallwood notes, “[b]y including only species whose documented
occurrences within 5 miles of the project site can be found in CNDDB, the IS/MND screens out
many special-status species from further consideration in its characterization of the wildlife
community as a component of the baseline biological setting. CNDDB was not designed to
support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife
community.” (Ex. A, p. 14.) Furthermore, Chambers Group also misuses the “CNDDB records
by incorporating them into an assignment of occurrence likelihoods, specifically Low, Moderate
and High occurrence likelihoods,” which “are partially based on whether CNDDB records exist
within 5 miles of the project site.” (Id.) According to Dr. Smallwood, “CNDDB is not designed
to support any occurrence likelihood other than confirmation of presence of a species.” (Id.)
Given the paucity of several potential special-status species identified by Dr. Smallwood in
Ventura County, the Project’s baseline should be informed by protocol level surveys that can
determine the presence or absence of these species at the Project site.
Third, the surveys conducted for the Project do not provide substantial evidence of the
presence or absence of special-status species that are known in the vicinity. The IS/MND asserts
that “necessary habitat does not occur on site.”( IS/MND, p. 23.) This assertion, however, lacks
evidence in the form of detection survey results. According to Dr. Smallwood, “No
reconnaissance-level survey is capable of detecting enough of the wildlife species that occur at a
site to realistically characterize the site’s wildlife community, including the site’s special-status
species.” (Ex. A, pp. 10-11.) As a result, neither the IS/MND nor the BRA was justified in
asserting that the Project site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Hence, Dr. Smallwood
recommends that detection surveys should be performed, and subsequently assessed and reported
in an EIR. (Id., p. 25.) Only with an accurate baseline could the IS/MND purport to assess the
impacts on these special- status species.
Fourth, in addition to these inadequate survey methods and unidentified baselines, the
IS/MND and its BRRA understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the
Project site. Dr. Smallwood concluded, based on his review of databases of species occurrences
and his and Noriko Smallwood’s August 8, 2022 site visit, that the Project site “supports many
species of wildlife, including many more than [he and Noriko and Chambers Group] could detect
during a couple of brief reconnaissance-level surveys.” (Ex. A, p. 8.)
Contrary to the IS/MND and BRRA’s reports, Dr. Smallwood’s review of eBird and
iNaturalist found that “108 special-status species of wildlife potentially use the site or its
overlying airspace at one time or another.” And, of these 108 special-status species, “2 were
confirmed onsite or immediately next to the site by survey visits, and 37 (34%) have been
documented in data bases within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 21 (19%) within 1.5 and 4
miles (‘Nearby’), and another 38 (35%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’).” (Ex. A, p. 15.)
According to Dr. Smallwood, “[m]ore than half (56%) of the special-status species,” he
identified “have been recorded within only 4 miles of the project site, which means the site
carries a lot of potential for supporting special-status species of wildlife.” (Id.; see also, id., pp.
16-20, Table 2.) Moreover, Dr. Smallwood notes:
116
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
Of the 20 species that Chambers Group (2022) addresses and which appear in…
Table 2 [of Dr. Smallwood’s Comments], 7 have been documented within 1.5
miles of the site, and 5 have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site.
The remainder have been documented within 4 and 30 miles of the site. These
distances are not great, putting 20 species in close proximity to a site where
Chambers Group (2022) concludes they are all of them absent. The absence
determinations that Chambers Group (2022) applies to these species are
premature and unfounded, given the short distances these species are known
to occur relative to the project site.
(Id., p. 15 [emphasis added] [citing Ex. A, pp. 16-20, Table 2).) Thus, given the close proximity
of these special-status species, the IS/MND fails as a matter of law to analyze the impacts to
these species and their habitat.
In addition, Dr. Smallwood and Noriko Smallwood detected 20 species of vertebrate
wildlife during a 2.5-hour site visit, 2 of which were special-status species. (Ex. A, p. 3.) Dr.
Smallwood and Noriko saw harvester ants (Pogonomermyx californicus), which, according to
Dr. Smallwood, “are significant ecological keystone species for their roles in soil bioturbation
and as prey to Blainville’s horned lizards and other species.” (Id.) Noriko and he observed
“ground squirrel burrows along the site’s perimeter, raising the possibility of use of the site by
burrowing owls.” (Id.) They also saw “American kestrel and greater roadrunner (Photos 4 and 5),
Cassin’s kingbirds and house finches (Photos 6 and 7), at least two families of killdeer (Photos 8
and 9), black phoebe (Photo 10), many American crows and many European starlings (Photos 11
and 12), among other species.” (Id. [citing Ex. A, pp. 4-6, Photos 4-12].) In addition, they
reported watching “a Cooper’s hawk attempt several times to capture killdeer on site, but…were
unable to photograph it.” (Id., p. 3.) Additionally, Dr. Smallwood writes:
Evidence of breeding on and around the site was abundant. We saw a pair of
American kestrels making food deliveries from the site and its surround[ings] to
their nest site in an elderberry adjacent to the site. We saw Cassin’s kingbirds and
northern mockingbirds feeding fledglings on elderberries adjacent to the site. We
also saw numerous juvenile house finches on and next to the site.
Many American crows flew over the site, and some stopped over on the site.
Common ravens foraged on site, as did flocks of Brewer’s blackbirds, house
finches, European starlings, and many mourning doves.
(Id.)
As Dr. Smallwood points out, the Chambers Group only “detected 7 species of wildlife,
which was 43% of the number of species/hour that Noriko and [Dr. Smallwood] detected from
the perimeter of the same site.” (Ex. A, p. 13.) Dr. Smallwood explains that “[t]his disparity of
detection is important, because detecting members of a species at a site is the surest way to
117
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
identify the species’ habitat. Not seeing members of the species when they were in fact present
contributes to the type of habitat association error discussed above.” (Id.)
In conclusion, the IS/MND’s failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the
impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to
properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project.
2. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze the Project’s Potential Significant Impact on
Loss of Breeding Capacity.
Neither the IS/MND nor the BRRA assess the lost breeding capacity of birds that would
result from the Project. (See, Ex. A, pp. 21, 26.) In so doing, the IS/MND fails to analyze the
impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the
ground and in trees within the biological survey area. (Id.) While habitat loss results in the
immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of
productive capacity. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a “29% decline in
overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years,” a decline which is driven
by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. (Id.
[citing Rosenberg et al. 2019].)
Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8
and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of 34.3 bird nests per acre. (Id. [citing Young (1948)
and Yahner (1982), respectively].) Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a tenth of the
34.3 average reported, then 3.43 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project’s 5.66 acres of
habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 19 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. (Id.)
Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 63
new birds per year. (Ex. A, p. 21 [citing Young (1948)].) Based on Dr. Smallwood’s
calculations, “[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years,
the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 6,260 birds.”
(Id., p. 21 [emphasis added].)
The potential loss of 6,260 birds in California over the first century following
construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not
been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding
capacity, and to mitigate that impact. At minimum, Dr. Smallwood recommends that
compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from habitat loss. (Id.,
pp. 21, 26.) Dr. Smallwood also recommends that “[a]n equal area of land should be protected in
perpetuity as close to the project site as possible.” (Id., p. 26.)
3. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Potential Significant
Impacts on Wildlife Movement.
The IS/MND fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts
to a wildlife corridor. (See, Ex. A, pp. 21-22.) In doing so, the IS/MND improperly dismisses the
118
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
Project’s potential to significantly impact wildlife movement reasoning that “[n]o other potential
wildlife corridors have been identified in the Project vicinity.” (IS/MND, p. 24; Ex. A, p. 21.)
These conclusions rely on a false CEQA standard. (Ex. A, p. 21.) As Dr. Smallwood
states, “[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of
whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” (Id., pp. 21-22; see also, CEQA Guidelines,
App. G, pp. 333-34 (stating that the CEQA significance threshold is whether, among other
things, a project will “[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species....”). Impacts to wildlife movement may occur with or without
the presence of a wildlife corridor. (Ex. A, p. 21.) Dr. Smallwood writes:
A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife
movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space
within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant
wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and
home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014).
(Ex. A, p. 22.) Hence, the Project “would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging
opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites.”
(Id.) Because the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, an EIR should be
prepared to address the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement in the region.
4. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze the Project’s Potential Significant Impacts on
Wildlife from Additional Traffic Generated by the Project.
Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife. (Ex.
A, pp. 22-24.) Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially
important because “traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife,” across North
America. (Id., p. 22 [citing Forman et al. 2003].) In the United States alone, estimates for “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.” (Id. [citing Loss et al. 2014].) As Dr. Smallwood explains:
The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial
impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-
generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for
various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 15-18), including
along roads far from the project footprint. 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).
(Id., pp. 22 & 23 [Photos 15-18].) Furthermore, a recent study conducted on traffic-caused
wildlife mortality “found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and
reptiles over 15 months of searches” along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa
119
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
County, California. (Id., p. 22 [citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009].) Hence, as Dr. Smallwood points
out, an analysis is needed to determine whether increased traffic generated by the Project would
result in impacts to local wildlife. (Id.)
The IS/MND anticipates that the proposed Project would generate an average of 16,382
daily miles traveled, which translates to 571,398 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT). (Ex. A, p.
24.) To predict the road mortality of wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing
under tires, Dr. Smallwood analyzed the data from the study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality
in Contra Costa County. (Id. [citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009].) By inputting estimates of vehicle
miles per wildlife fatalities calculated using the Contra Costa County study, i.e. 1,825 vehicle
miles per fatality, and the IS/MND’s prediction of 571,398 annual VMT due to the Project, Dr.
Smallwood predicts “313 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year” with “[o]perations over 50
years would accumulate 15,650 wildlife fatalities.” (Id.)
Based on Dr. Smallwood’s assumptions and calculations, the traffic generated by the
Project would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood notes that
“[m]itigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible,” and
therefore, “need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.”(Id.) Specifically, Dr.
Smallwood suggests compensatory mitigation in the form of “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,” and
“donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities.” (Id., p. 26.)
The IS/MND fails to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project.
Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the
vicinity, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation.
5. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Potential Cumulative
Impacts on Wildlife.
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the
Project by improperly implying that cumulative impacts are in reality only residual impacts as a
result of incomplete mitigation from project-level impacts. (Ex. A, pp. 24-25.) It provides no
analysis of cumulative impacts specific to biological resources. Instead, the IS/MND incorrectly
concludes that the Project “would cause no project-level significant impacts specific to any
environmental issues addressed by the IS/MND.” (Id., p. 24.) However, the IS/MND’s implied
standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. (Id.) CEQA defines
cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the required
cumulative analysis. (See, 14 CCR § 15130; PRC § 21083(b)(2).) As Dr. Smallwood explains:
This notion is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative impacts and
how to analyze them. If this was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects
analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. The IS’s analysis is
based on an assumption that other projects in the area adequately mitigated
120
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
their impacts to wildlife, thereby leaving no impacts to accumulate. Again,
this is not how CEQA defines cumulative impacts and it is inconsistent with
the Precautionary Principle in risk analysis directed to rare or precious
resources. Even where impacts may be individually limited, their “incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(1)).
(Ex. A, pp. 24-25 [emphasis added].) Hence, the IS/MND misrepresented the standard and failed
to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious
analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on wildlife.
6. Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys Identified in the IS/MND are not
Sufficient to Mitigate Potential Impacts to Bats and Birds that may be
Present at the Site.
Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigation identified in the
IS/MND related to preconstruction surveys for nesting birds, i.e., Mitigation Measure BIO-1
(“MM-BIO-1”). (See, e.g., IS/MND, p. 23; Ex. A, pp. 25-26.) Although Dr. Smallwood agrees
that preconstruction surveys need to be performed for nesting birds, he notes that preconstruction
surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project’s anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate
impacts to nesting birds at the Project site. (Ex. A, p. 25.) As Dr. Smallwood explains:
Preconstruction surveys should be performed for nesting birds, but not as a
substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or
intended to reduce project impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as
last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable
nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery.
Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most bird
species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of their nests
will not be detected by preconstruction surveys without prior support of detection
surveys. Locating all of the nests on site would require more effort than is
committed during preconstruction surveys.
(Id.) Hence, Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be conducted for nesting birds
on the site. Dr. Smallwood states:
Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys
by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most
likely to find animals or their breeding sites. Detection surveys are needed to
assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures,
because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either.
(Id., pp. 25-26.)
121
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
In addition, the IS/MND completely fails to mitigate impacts to potential nesting bats that
could be present at the site. According to Dr. Smallwood, “[m]ultiple special-status species of
bats likely occur on and around the project site.” (Id., p. 26.) Therefore, “[a] qualified bat
biologist should be tasked with completing protocol-level detection surveys for bats,” to learn
“whether bats roost in the adjacent row of trees along the west border and within the elderberry
shrubs along the south and east borders” and “[w]hether bats forage on site also needs to be
learned.” (Id.) By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird’s and bat’s reliance on the site
for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within three days prior to the start of
construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project,
the IS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project’s potential significant impacts to nesting
birds and bats.
Dr. Smallwood also recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project
before preconstruction surveys are performed. (Ex. A, pp. 25-26.) In addition to detection
surveys and preconstruction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how
the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood also recommends
compensatory mitigation for habitat loss or losses to project-generated traffic, and provides
several other mitigation measures that should be considered in an EIR. (See, e.g., id., pp. 25-27.)
In conclusion, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately
analyze and formulate appropriate measures to mitigate project impacts to wildlife.
B. THE IS/MND FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ANALYZE AND MITIGATE THE
PROJECT’S POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS.
Air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the
Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) reviewed the IS/MND and related appendices
and found that the IS/MND’s conclusions as to the Project’s air quality impacts were not
supported by substantial evidence. Instead, SWAPE analysis found that there is substantial
evidence of a fair argument that the Project could result in significant adverse air quality impacts
from construction and operation. An EIR is therefore required. SWAPE’s comment and CVs are
attached as Exhibit B.
1. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate Construction-Related Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions.
The IS/MND erroneously claims that the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
(“VCAPCD”) significant thresholds do not apply to construction emissions, and that the
VCAPCD only requires adherence to Rules 55, requiring all projects to minimize construction
emissions through adherence to fugitive dust control measures, and Rule 74, requiring all
projects to minimize ROG through adherence to architectural coating VOC content limits. (See,
e.g., Ex. B, pp. 1-2 [citing IS/MND, p. 24].) This is incorrect, however. (See, id., pp. 2-3.)
SWAPE explains that VCAPCD Air Quality Assessment Guidelines state:
122
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
Construction-related emissions (including portable engines and portable engine-
driven equipment subject to the ARB’s Statewide Portable Equipment
Registration Program, and used for construction operations or repair and
maintenance activities) of ROC and NOx are not counted towards the two
significance thresholds, since these emissions are temporary. However,
construction-related emissions should be mitigated if estimates of ROC and
NOx emissions from the heavy-duty construction equipment anticipated to
be used for a particular project exceed the 5 pounds per day threshold in the
Ojai Planning Area, or the 25 pounds per day threshold in the remainder of
the county. Mitigation measures to reduce such emissions are listed in Section
7.4.3, “ROC and NOx Construction Mitigation Measures” and in the mitigation
module of URBEMIS (emphasis added).1
(Ex. B, p. 2.) Here, the IS/MND estimates that the VOC and NOx emissions associated with
Project construction are greater than 25 pounds per day (“lbs/day”), (IS/MND, p. 18, Table 4):
According to SWAPE, these estimates demonstrate “that the Project’s construction-
related VOC and NOx emissions exceed the applicable VCAPCD threshold.” (Ex. B, p. 3.)
Therefore, as SWAPE notes, the IS/MND is required to incorporate the following measures
pursuant to VCAPCD Guidelines Section 7.4.3:
As discussed in Chapter 5, Estimating Ozone Precursor Emissions, ozone
precursor emissions from construction vehicles can be substantial. However, there
are very few feasible measures available to reduce these emissions. APCD
recommends the following measures to mitigate ozone precursor emissions from
construction motor vehicles:
1. Minimize equipment idling time.
2. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as
per manufacturers’ specifications.
1 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” October 2003, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 5-3 – 5-4.
123
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
3. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through
October), to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating
at the same time.
4. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed
natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if
feasible.2
(Ex. B, p. 3.) Thus, until the IS/MND incorporates the above-mentioned mitigation, the
IS/MND’s air quality analysis, and subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion,
should not be relied upon.
2. There is Substantial Evidence of a fair Argument that the Project may have
Significant Health Impacts as a Result of Diesel Particulate Emissions.
A subsequent EIR is required to evaluate the significant health impacts to individuals and
workers from the Project’s operational and construction-related diesel particulate matter
(“DPM”) emissions as a result of the proposed Project. SWAPE’s analysis of health risks related
to the Project concludes that the IS/MND failed to adequately analyze the health impacts related
to the Project’s operational and construction DPM emissions, and provides substantial evidence
of a fair argument that the Project will have significant health impacts as a result of such
emissions. (See, Ex. B, pp. 3-10).
i. The IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate health risks from DPM
emissions.
According to SWAPE, the IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the proposed Project
would have a less-than-significant health risk impact, without conducting an adequate quantified
construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). (Ex. B, pp. 3-6.) Specifically, the
IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related
health risk impact “because the short-term construction duration, limited amount of heavy-duty
equipment, distance from sensitive receptors, and compliance with applicable regulations would
not result in substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions.” (Id., pp. 3-4 (citing IS/MND,
p. 20).) The IS/MND also incorrectly concludes that “the Project would result in a less-than-
significant operational health risk impact because the Project would not generate more than 100
truck trips per day.” (Id., p. 4 (citing IS/MND, p. 21).) However, as SWAPE points out, the
IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent
less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. (See, id., pp. 4-6.)
First, IS/MND wrongly assumes that the Project is exempt from the preparation of an
HRA according to California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) because
the proposed warehouse building would not generate more than 100 truck deliveries per day.
(Ex. B, pp. 4-5.) However, SWAPE states that “this is incorrect, as the above-referenced
2 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” October 2003, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 7-8.
124
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
CAPCOA guidance is in reference to the recommended preparation of an HRA for the
development of a new receptor, not for a new source.” (Id., p. 4.) Specifically, SWAPE notes
that CAPCOA states:
Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center
(that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with
operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit
operations exceed 300 hours per week).3
(Id.) Because the correct use of this guidance would be to avoid locating new residential
developments within 1,000-feet of an existing distribution center, SWAPE concludes that “the
IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project is exempt from the preparation of an HRA is based on an
incorrect interpretation of CAPCOA guidance and should not be relied upon.” (Id., pp. 4-5.)
Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the
IS/MND fails to quantitatively evaluate TACs related to Project construction or operation, or
make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing
sensitive receptors from the Project. (Ex. B, p. 5.) SWAPE identifies potential emissions from
both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and the additional 216 daily vehicle trips
related to project operation. (Id. [citing IS/MND, p. 6; IS/MND, Appendix K, p. 9, Table 3
(Traffic and Circulation Study)].) As such, the IS/MND fails to meet the CEQA requirement that
projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health
caused by those emissions.
Third, the IS/MND’s conclusion is also inconsistent with the most recent guidance
published by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible
for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district
guidelines.4 (Ex. B, pp. 5-6.) OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be
evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily
exceeds. (Id., p. 5.) The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last
over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure
duration to estimate individual cancer risks. (Id., pp. 5-6.) Based on its extensive experience,
SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore
recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. (Id., p. 5.) An EIR is
therefore required to analyze these impacts. (Id.)
Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified
construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors or evaluating the
combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction and
operation together, SWAPE found that the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk
3 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8 -6-09.pdf, p. 9, Table 2.
4 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
125
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
impact to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District’s (“VCAPCD”) specific numeric
threshold of 10 in one million. (Ex. A, p. 6.) Thus, in accordance with the most relevant
guidance, an updated assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from
Project construction and operation should be conducted.
ii. There is substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant
health risk impact.
Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate
potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. (Ex. B, pp. 6-10.) SWAPE
prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential health risk impacts posed to residential
sensitive receptors as a result of the Project’s construction and operational TAC emissions.
SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE
applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at
different stages of life based on OEHHA, CAPCOA, and VCAPCD guidance utilizing age
sensitivity factors.
SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately
100 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation, while utilizing the
recommended age sensitivity factors, is approximately 50.3 in one million for infants. (Id., p.
10.) SWAPE also concluded that the total excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of Project
construction and operation is approximately 59.7 in one million. (Id.) Therefore, the cancer risk
for infants and lifetime residents exceeds the VCAPCD’s threshold of 10 in one million, thus
resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the
IS/MND. Hence, an EIR is required for the Project.
CEQA requires an agency to include an analysis of health risks that connects the
Project’s air emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions. SWAPE’s screening-level
HRA demonstrates that the Project’s construction and operation may have a significant health
risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.
Because SWAPE’s screening-level HRA indicates a potentially significant impact, the City must
prepare an EIR. This EIR should also include an HRA which makes a reasonable effort to
connect the Project’s air quality emissions and the potential health risks posed to nearby
receptors. Thus, as SWAPE recommends, “an EIR should be prepared to include a refined
health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated
with both Project construction and operation.” (Id.)
Lastly, since the IS/MND’s analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in
potentially significant air quality and health risk impacts that should be mitigated further, in an
effort to reduce emissions, SWAPE identified several, feasible mitigation measures that are
applicable to the proposed Project. (Ex. B, pp 10-12.) In conclusion, an EIR should be prepared
to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated air quality and health risk
analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions
to below thresholds. (Id., p. 12.)
126
Comment on MND, Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 8.A
September 27, 2022
Page 8 of 18
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR
should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in
accordance with CEQA. We reserve the right to supplement these comments, including but not
limited to at public hearings concerning the Project. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula
Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).) Thank you for considering these
comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
127
EXHIBIT A
128
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Shanna Farley, Principal Planner
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021 14 August 2022
RE: Pentair Warehouse Expansion
Dear Ms. Farley,
I write to comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
prepared for the proposed Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project, which I understand
would add a warehouse with 90,566 sf of floor space on 5.65 acres at 10941 Los Angeles
Avenue (APN 511-0-200-265) (City of Moorpark 2022). In support of my comments, I
reviewed a biological resources reconnaissance assessment prepared by Chambers
Group (2022).
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D.
degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post-
graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research
has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with
the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many
papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs
Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife
Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State
University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific
journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and
I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife
surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.
SITE VISIT
I visited the proposed project site with Noriko Smallwood, who is a wildlife ecologist
who received her Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles. We
surveyed the site 06:09―08:39 hours on 8 August 2022. We used binoculars to scan for
wildlife from the roadside periphery, and we listened for calls and looked for sign of
animal presence. The sky was clear with no significant wind and temperatures ranged
63―72° F. The site had been disked to remove nearly all vegetation, and certainly had
the effect of suppressing wildlife (Photos 1 ― 3). However, some species of wildlife
thrive on the open space provided by efforts to suppress vegetation. Other species thrive
in the neighboring trees and mature elderberry shrubs.
129
2
Photos 1 ― 3. Views of the site (top and middle) and east side of site (bottom) of the
proposed project, 8 August 2022. Visible in the middle photo are ground squirrel
burrows in foreground, and in bottom photo is northern mockingbird atop an
elderberry. The mockingbirds were nesting.
130
3
We detected 20 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site (Table 1), 2 of which were
special-status species. We saw harvester ants (Pogonomermyx californicus), which are
significant ecological keystone species for their roles in soil bioturbation and as prey to
Blainville’s horned lizards and other species. We saw ground squirrel burrows along the
site’s perimeter, raising the possibility of use of the site by burrowing owls. We also saw
American kestrel and greater roadrunner (Photos 4 and 5), Cassin’s kingbirds and house
finches (Photos 6 and 7), at least two families of killdeer (Photos 8 and 9), black phoebe
(Photo 10), many American crows and many European starlings (Photos 11 and 12),
among other species. We watched a Cooper’s hawk attempt several times to capture
killdeer on site, but we were unable to photograph it.
Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko and I observed during 2.5 hours of survey on 8 August 2022.
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Duck spp. Flyover
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Perched on railroad tracks
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Nest site with adult pair
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP Hunted killdeer on site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Nest site on site border
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Fledgling being fed
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Just offsite
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Nest site adjacent; fledgling
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Foraging on site in flocks
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
California towhee Pipilo crissalis
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Foraging on site in flocks
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Just offsite
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Burrows along border of site
1 Listed as TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey
(California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
Evidence of breeding on and around the site was abundant. We saw a pair of American kestrels
making food deliveries from the site and its surrounds to their nest site in an elderberry adjacent to
the site. We saw Cassin’s kingbirds and northern mockingbirds feeding fledglings on elderberries
adjacent to the site. We also saw numerous juvenile house finches on and next to the site.
Many American crows flew over the site, and some stopped over on the site. Common ravens foraged
on site, as did flocks of Brewer’s blackbirds, house finches, European starlings, and many mourning
doves.
131
4
Photos 4 and 5. American kestrel over the project site (left) and greater roadrunner at
north edge of the project site (right), 8 August 2022.
Photos 6 and 7. Cassin’s kingbird (left) and house finch (right) on the edge of the
project site, 8 August 2022.
132
5
Photos 8 and 9. Killdeer on the project site, 8 August 2022. At least 2 families of
killdeer occupied the site.
133
6
Photo 10. Black phoebe next to the project site, 8 August 2022.
Photos 11 and 12.
American crow (left)
and European starling
(right) on the project
site, 8 August 2022.
134
7
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing survey results are true and accurate.
Reconnaissance-level surveys can be useful for confirming presence of species that were
detected, but they can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not
detected. One can model the pattern in species detections during a survey as a means to
estimate the number of species that used the site but were undetected during the survey.
To support such a modeling effort, the observer needs to record the times into the
survey when each species was first detected. The cumulative number of species’
detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing
returns (Figure 1). In the case of our survey, the pattern in the data (Figure 1) predicts
that had we spent more time on site, or had we help from additional biologists, we
would have detected 22 species of vertebrate wildlife, which is only 2 more than we
detected. The pattern in the data indicates that the site’s richness of wildlife species
started off early in the survey greater than the upper bound of the 95% confidence
interval estimated from other project sites we have surveyed in the region, but richness
dropped below the lower bound of the 95% CI after the first hour of survey. The site is
not as rich in wildlife species as other sites we have visited in the area, but it is
nevertheless amply used by wildlife and it supports at least 2 special-status species of
wildlife (Figure 1). Efforts to suppress vegetation on the site has taken a substantial toll
on wildlife, but they did not eliminate wildlife altogether.
Figure 1. Actual (red
circles) and predicted (red
line) relationships between
the number of vertebrate
wildlife species detected and
the elapsed survey time
based on our visual-scan
survey on 8 August 2022,
and compared to the mean
and 95% CI of surveys at 9
sites she and I performed at
proposed project sites in the
south-central coast region.
Note that the relationship
would differ if the survey
was based on another
method or during another
season.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Minutes into survey
Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
d
e
t
e
c
te
d
Actual count of species
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 10.4
95% CI of 9 visual-
scan surveys 2019-2022
Y
135
8
The site supports many species of wildlife, including many more than we could detect
during a couple of brief reconnaissance-level surveys. However, although this modeling
approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at
the time of a survey, it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or
across multiple years because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their
movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat.
By use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to data collected elsewhere can
predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species likely making use of the site over the
longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167
km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015
through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46
stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods
Noriko and I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites.
At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential
survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours
(number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of
species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in
Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of
cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the
station: 𝑅̂=1
1 𝑎⁄+𝑎×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑟)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected.
The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of
0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted
asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species
richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations. I also
averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number
of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I detected 11.2 species over the
first 2.5 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (2.5 hours to match the number of hours
I surveyed at the project site), which composed 19.6% of the total predicted species I
would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2,
the 20 species we detected after our 2.5 hours of survey at the project site likely
represented 19.6% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys
over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, we
would likely detect 20 0.196⁄=102 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming
our ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold with through the
detections of all 102 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect
10 special-status species of wildlife.
Again, however, my prediction of 102 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 10 special-
status species of wildlife, is derived from a visual-scan survey during the daytime, and
would not detect nocturnal mammals. The true number of species composing the
wildlife community of the site must be larger. One or two reconnaissance-level surveys
136
9
should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife
community, but they certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use
the site.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.
Additionally, 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 special-
status species tend to be rarer and thus less detectable than common species. Special-
status 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 3). (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.)
0 20 40 60 80 1000
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(9
5
%
C
I
)
137
10
Figure 3. 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 Noriko
Smallwood and I detected during
surveys at 199 project sites in
California, 1999-2022. The solid
vertical line represents the
number of species Noriko and I
detected, and the dashed vertical
line represents the number of
species detected by Chambers
Group (2022).
As demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, 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 surveys earlier completed at 199 project sites, our survey
effort at the project site carried an 19% chance of detecting a listed species, whereas the
survey effort of Chambers Group (2022) carried a 5% chance. Listed species of
vertebrate wildlife likely use the site, but conclusively documenting their use would take
more survey effort to achieve a reasonable likelihood of detection. No reconnaissance-
level survey is capable of detecting enough of the wildlife species that occur at a site to
realistically characterize the site’s wildlife community, including the site’s special-status
species. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR that is better
informed by biological resources surveys and by appropriate interpretation of survey
outcomes for the purpose of characterizing the wildlife community as part of the current
environmental setting.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to
accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological
species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they 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 basis
for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline
against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization
of the environmental setting, including the project’s site’s regional setting, is one of
CEQA’s essential analytical steps (§15125). Methods to achieve this first step typically
include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, an d (2) reviews of literature,
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Number of species detected
Pr
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
F
u
l
l
y
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
,
Ca
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
,
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
o
r
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Hosmer Lemeshow =3.48, P = 0.90
95% CI
199 sites
138
11
databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the
case of this project, these essential steps remain incomplete and misleading.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
Ideally, the purpose of field survey in support of environmental review is to identify
which species use a project site, how they use it, and in what numbers. Identifying the
presence of certain species – special-status species – is more important than the
presence of others. Analysts need this information to identify what is at stake, and as a
basis for predicting project impacts. In reality, biological survey to inventory species is
costly in time and effort, and its product uncertain. Some species are large or loud, and
can be seen during diurnal surveys, whereas others are tiny and quiet and are detectable
only by night, by trapping or by remote-sensing technology. 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
investigator’s standard of what counts as presence. Does a single 5-minute occurrence
over a decade qualify a species as present? And if such a record was made, who can
know whether many other brief occurrences truly occurred without having been
documented?
The dilemma is that environmental review really needs species inventory, but biologists
are imperfect observers of wildlife at any given site. Obtaining a true species inventory
is unlikely, given the brief windows of time and budget that project applicants and their
permitting authorities allow for biologists to surveil the site. The wildlife species that
are detected by reconnaissance-level survey represent only a sampling of the species
that truly use the site. This is because biologists vary in their skill at detecting wildlife
species, and because species of wildlife vary in their detection probabilities during a
typical reconnaissance-level survey, ranging from near 0% among rare or nocturnal
species to 100% among species that consulting biologists often refer to as “common.” In
truth, “common” species can number fewer than the “rare” or cryptic species that are
more difficult to detect. Rare or cryptic species often require specialized survey
methods, begging the question of whether reconnaissance-level surveys can reveal any
reliable information to consumers of the environmental review.
Reconnaissance-level 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
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, Smallwood 2002). Habitat
associations defined by consulting biologists typically lack foundation in actual
measurements of habitat use, and are therefore speculative and prone to abuse. One
form of abuse is pigeon-holing species into unrealistically narrow portions of the
environment which can then be said not to exist on the project site. Another form of
139
12
abuse is to assign functions to habitat for the purpose of dividing habitat into functional
parts, such as between breeding habitat versus foraging habitat. This functional
assignment gives consultants the opportunity to prioritize habitat by function, and again
with the aim of concluding breeding habitat is unavailable and thus the species at issue
is absent. But there is no scientific basis for this practice. This type of functional
assignment fundamentally conflicts with the habitat concept.
Reconnaissance-level 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 known 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, the habitat
associations relied upon by consulting biologists rarely comport with true habitat, which
is decided by members of each species. Habitat is that part of the environment that is
used by a species (Hall et al. 1997), and is most accurately charact erized through
scientific measurement (Smallwood 2002). However, scientific measurement of habitat
use is prone to substantial measurement and interpretive biases (Smallwood 2002),
which means that habitat associations are often uncertain and unfinished. Habitat
associations defined by consulting biologists typically lack foundation in actual
measurements of habitat use, and are therefore speculative and prone to abuse.1
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 species inventory should be the first objective of reconnaissance-level surveys.
But a reasonably feasible inventory is only a sampling of the inventory and not a true
inventory. What, then, is the appropriate approach for informing a CEQA review? 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. Another is to
honestly report the uncertainties of the characterizations of the species inventory and of
the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. The analyst can also 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
1 One form of abuse of habitat associations applied to CEQA review is pigeon -holing species into unrealistically
narrow portions of the environment, which can more readily be said not to exist on the project site. With this
approach, the analyst selects a convenient habitat association from the literature or the internet while neglecting
to include other documented habitat associations. Another form of abuse is to assign functions to habitat for the
purpose of dividing habitat into functional parts, such as between breeding habitat versus foraging habitat. This
functional assignment gives consultants the opportunity to prioritize habitat by function, with the aim of
concluding breeding habitat is unavailable and thus the species at issue is absent. But this type of functional
assignment fundamentally conflicts with the habitat concept. 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 in risk analysis and consistent with the habitat concep t, CEQA review should be based
on the broadest of available habitat characterizations, which should be interpreted on the whole of habitat rather
than contrived functional parts. Any detections of a species on or over a site, regardless of time of year, s hould be
interpreted as that species’ use of habitat, any part of which is critical to breeding success.
140
13
is risk analysis directed toward rare and precious resources (National Research Council
1986).
How did the consulting biologists address the wildlife species inventory
and special-status species occurrence likelihoods at the project site?
Chambers Group (2022) performed wildlife surveys “to document existing vegetation
communities, identify special status species with a potential for occ urrence, and map
habitats that could support special status wildlife species...” Chambers Group reports
no standards related to how special-status species are identified with potential for
occurrence, nor how habitats are mapped nor how mapped habitats are assessed for
their potential to support special-status species of wildlife. The implied level of
knowledge over habitat and occurrence potential is unrealistic. Even those of us who
measure habitat use to better characterize habitat of any given species remain
surprisingly ignorant of habitat. Except for certain species in certain environmental
settings, the notion that a consulting biologist can walk around a site over a couple of
hours and declare this over there as habitat for that species, or not, is a pseudoscientific
notion at best.
Two biologists walked over the site for 2 hours beginning at 10:30 on 16 December 2021.
They detected 7 species of wildlife, which was 43% of the number of species/hour that
Noriko and I detected from the perimeter of the same site. Chambers Group (2022) did
not see much -- certainly not as much as we did. This disparity of detection is
important, because detecting members of a species at a site is the surest way to identify
the species’ habitat. Not seeing members of the species when they were in fact present
contributes to the type of habitat association error discussed in the preceding
paragraph.
According to Chambers Group (2022:23), “none of the [38 special-status] species were
found on site.” But this reported finding is also pseudoscientific, because it is factual
while at the same time reported out of context of insufficient survey effort committed to
the site. As demonstrated in Figures 1 through 3, it should be of no surprise that
special-status species were undetected during a brief reconnaissance-level survey.
Chambers Group reports a factual survey outcome of little if any informative value.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to
inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which
protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information
to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to
identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to
geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the
reconnaissance-level survey is not going to detect all of the species of wildlife that make
use of the site. This step can identity those species yet to be detected at the site but
141
14
which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations
are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of
further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such
determinations (see below).
The IS/MND is inadequately informed by a literature and data base review. The
IS/MND inappropriately uses California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to
determine which species have potential to occur in the project area. By including only
species whose documented occurrences within 5 miles of the project site can be found in
CNDDB, the IS/MND screens out many special-status species from further
consideration in its characterization of the wildlife community as a component of the
baseline biological setting. CNDDB was not designed to support absence
determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife
community. The IS/MND misuses CNDDB.
Chambers Group (2021) further misuses CNDDB records by incorporating them into an
assignment of occurrence likelihoods, specifically Low, Moderate and High occurrence
likelihoods. These assignments are partially based on whether CNDDB records exist
within 5 miles of the project site. CNDDB is not designed to support any occurrence
likelihood other than confirmation of presence of a species. 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.”
CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access
to whatever real properties they report from. Many real properties have never been
surveyed by biologists. Many real properties have been surveyed, but the survey
outcomes never reported to CNDDB. Many real properties have been surveyed multiple
times, but not all survey outcomes reported to CNDDB. Furthermore, CNDDB is
interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more
recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB
than were species assigned special status since the inception of CNDDB. Because
Bullock’s oriole and multiple other species were not assigned special status until 2021,
these species would have lacked records in CNDDB when Hagan (2021) prepared his
analysis. This lack of CNDDB records had nothing to do with true geographic
distributions. And because negative findings are not reported to CNDDB, CNDDB
cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either.
Negative findings from CNDDB queries are inappropriate as a basis for narrowing a list
of potentially occurring species. The limitations of CNDDB are well-known, and
summarized by California Department of Fish and Wildlife in a warning presented on its
CNDDB web site (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data): “CNDDB
staff work very hard to keep the 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 statewide. Field
142
15
verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an
important obligation of our users.” The IS/MND’s use of CNDDB records to filter out
species from its characterization of the baseline biological setting is therefore
inconsistent with CNDDB’s purpose. And in fact, if CNDDB was appropriate to the task
to which Chambers Group (2022) applies it, then there would be no need for
implementation of protocol-level detection surveys for special-status species. But this is
not the case. For the above-stated reasons, Chambers Group’s (2022) list of special-
status species assessed for occurrence likelihoods is misleading and unsupported.
Assuming absence of any special-status species based on absence of CNDDB records is
inappropriate.
In my assessment based on database reviews and our site visits, 108 special-status
species of wildlife potentially use the site or its overlying airspace at one time or another
(Table 2). Of these, 2 were confirmed onsite or immediately next to the site by survey
visits, and 37 (34%) have been documented in data bases within 1.5 miles of the site
(‘Very close’), 21 (19%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 38 (35%) within 4
to 30 miles (‘In region’). More than half (56%) of the special-status species in Table 2
have been recorded within only 4 miles of the project site, which means the site carries a
lot of potential for supporting special-status species of wildlife. On any given day, one
or more of these species like make use of the project site, but being there to document
that use probably requires multiple surveys (see Figures 1 through 3). On the day
Chambers Group surveyed, none were detected. On the day we surveyed, two were
detected. If biologists were to survey on another day, one to several additional special-
status species might be detected. The occurrence databases inform us that many
special-status species occur near the project site, which means these species likely make
use of the project site, and sufficient survey effort should be directed to the site to either
confirm these species use the site or to support absence determinations. But a single
survey cannot support the absence determination of any of these species.
Of the 20 species that Chambers Group (2022) addresses and which appear in my Table
2, 7 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site, and 5 have been documented
within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. The remainder have been documented within 4 and
30 miles of the site. These distances are not great, putting 20 species in close proximity
to a site where Chambers Group (2022) concludes they are all of them absent. The
absence determinations that Chambers Group (2022) applies to these species are
premature and unfounded, given the short distances these species are known to occur
relative to the project site.
The environmental baseline needs to be better informed by both on-site surveys and
occurrence database review. Absence determinations need to be founded on substantial
evidence. Without such evidence, the precautionary principle in risk analysis calls for
erring on the side of caution, which in this application means assuming presence of each
potentially occurring special-status species. What little I have done to survey the site
and to review occurrence databases reveals numerous special-status species at risk of
significant impacts caused by the proposed project. A fair argument can be made for the
need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize existing conditions so that impacts
analysis can proceed from a sound footing.
143
16
Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist
records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings. ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the
site, “nearby” indicates within 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 30 miles or so.
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/NMD Data base
records, Site
visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Absent In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Absent Very close
Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Absent Very close
Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Absent Nearby
Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Absent Very close
California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Absent In region
Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Absent In region
Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Absent Very close
South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Absent In region
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC Absent In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC, BCC In region
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus WL, BCC Very close
144
17
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/NMD Data base
records, Site
visits
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP In region
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close
American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC, BCC In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP In region
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP,
BCC
Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Nearby
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Very close
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP, BCC In region
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Absent Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio Otis SSC3, BCC, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus SSC3, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
145
18
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/NMD Data base
records, Site
visits
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BOP, BCC Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC, WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE, BCC Very close
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Absent In region
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Absent Very close
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Absent Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica CT, SSC Absent Very close
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Very close
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL, BCC In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC Nearby
Belding’s savannah sparrow 2 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE In region
Large-billed savannah sparrow 2 Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2 In region
Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Nearby
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
146
19
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/NMD Data base
records, Site
visits
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby
Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC Absent Nearby
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC, BCC In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region
Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia BCC, SSC2 Absent Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Absent In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range
Western 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 range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H Absent In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In region
Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG:MH In region
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In range
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In range
147
20
Common name
Species name
Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/NMD Data base
records, Site
visits
Southern California salt marsh
shrew
Sorex ornatus salicornicus SSC In range
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Absent Nearby
1 Listed as FE = federal endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CE = California
endangered, CT = California threatened, CCE & CCT = Candidate California Endangered & Threatened, CFP = California Fully
Protected (CFG 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 = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and WBWG =
Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low, moderate, and high.
148
21
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
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 demograp hic
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, one of which is unsoundly analyzed and the
others not analyzed in the IS/MND.
HABITAT LOSS
The IS/MND does not address potential impacts of habitat loss to breeding birds.
Habitat loss has been recognized as the most likely leading cause of a documented 29%
decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years
(Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical
decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. 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. Assuming the project site supports a tenth of the total nesting density of the
above-referenced study sites, and applying this adjusted density to the 5.66 acres of the
project site would predict a loss of 19 bird nests.
The loss of192 nest sites of birds would qualify as a significant project impact that has
not been addressed in the IS/MND. But the impact does not end with the immediate
loss of nest sites as the site is graded in preparation for impervious surfaces. The
reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per
nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird
productivity, the project would prevent the production of 55 fledglings per year. After
100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost
capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 6,260 birds
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number
of years ÷ years/generation)}. The project’s denial to California of 63 birds per year has
not been analyzed as a potential impact in the IS/MND, nor does the IS/MND provide
any compensatory mitigation for this impact. A fair argument can be made for the need
to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts to wildlife caused by
habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
The IS/MND’s analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in
the region is fundamentally flawed. According to the IS/MND (page 24), “No other
potential wildlife corridors have been identified in the Project vicinity.” The implied
premise is that only disruption of the function of a wildlife corridor can interfere with
wildlife movement in the region. This premise, however, represents a false CEQA
standard, and is therefore inappropriate to the analysis. The primary phrase of the
CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is
149
22
channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important
for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open
space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant
wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home
range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would
cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel
even farther between remaining stopover sites.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts
to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project -generated traffic.
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross
roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 15-18), including along roads far from the
project footprint. 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.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile
stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study
found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15
months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted
for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and
searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to
find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken
at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right
next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors
were similar to those for carcass persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011).
Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a
wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al.
2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by
traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per
mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the
national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would
translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss
et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is
needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result
in local impacts on wildlife.
150
23
Photo 15. 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 16. Great-tailed grackle walks
onto a rural road in Imperial County, 4
February 2022.
Photo 17. Mourning dove killed by
vehicle on a California road. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.
Photo 18. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.
151
24
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality
can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it
would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al.
(2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data
resulted in an estimated 3,900 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). VMT is useful for predicting
wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach
of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a
rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision
fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife
The IS/MND predicts 571,398 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 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 IS/MND’s
prediction of 571,398 annual VMT due to the project predicts 313 vertebrate wildlife
fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 15,650 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 IS/MND does not address this
potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. There is at least a fair argument that
can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures
to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need
exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The IS/MND provides a flawed analysis. It provides no analysis of cumulative impacts
specific to biological resources. According to the IS/MND, the project would cause no
project-level significant impacts specific to any environmental issues addressed by the
IS/MND. The IS/MND implies that cumulative effects are simply residual impacts of
incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts. This notion is inconsistent with CEQA’s
definition of cumulative impacts and how to analyze them. If this was CEQA’s standard,
152
25
then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. The
IS's analysis is based on an assumption that other projects in the area adequately
mitigated their impacts to wildlife, thereby leaving no impacts to accumulate. Again,
this is not how CEQA defines cumulative impacts and it is inconsistent with the
Precautionary Principle in risk analysis directed to rare or precious resources. Even
where impacts may be individually limited, their “incremental effects of an individual
project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA
Guidelines §15064(h)(1)).
MITIGATION MEASURES
The IS/MND proposes only one mitigation measure for biological resources adversely
affected by the project.
MM-BIO-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey
Preconstruction surveys should be performed for nesting birds, but not as a substitute
for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce
project impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time
salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before
they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status
species are rare and cryptic, and because most bird species are expert at hiding their
nests lest they get predated, most of their nests will not be detected by preconstruction
surveys without prior support of detection surveys. Locating all of the nests on site
would require more effort than is committed during preconstruction surveys.
Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by
mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find
animals or their breeding sites. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to
inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction
surveys are not intended for these roles either.
Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However,
an EIR should be prepared, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction
surveys would be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are
vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these
reasons, and because the salvage of readily detectable animals or their nests would not
prevent the permanent loss of habitat, the proposed mitigation measure is not sufficient
to reduce the project’s impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
The IS/MND proposes only preconstruction surveys, but no compensatory mitigation
for habitat loss or losses to project-generated traffic. A fair argument can be made for
the need to prepare an EIR to formulate appropriate measures to mitigate project
153
26
impacts to wildlife. Below are few suggestions of measures that ought to be considered
in an EIR.
Detection Surveys: If the project goes forward, 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. An example of a survey protocol that needs to be implemented is the
CDFW (2012) survey guidelines for burrowing owl. Ground squirrels occur all around
the site, so burrows and squirrels are available in support of burrowing owls. The space
of the site is also open, which provides burrowing owls the field of view they need to
avoid predation. The survey guidelines should be implemented, including within the
recommended buffer space around the project site. The guidelines call for multiple
surveys throughout the breeding season.
Detection Surveys for Bats: Multiple special-status species of bats likely occur on
and around the project site. A qualified bat biologist should be tasked with completing
protocol-level detection surveys for bats. It needs to be learned whether bats roost in
the adjacent row of trees along the west border and within the elderberry shrubs along
the south and east borders. Whether bats forage on site also needs to be learned.
Preconstruction surveys: Reports of the methods and outcomes of preconstruction
surveys should be required. The reports should be made available to the public.
Construction Monitoring: If the project goes forward, two or more qualified
biologists need to serve as construction monitors. They should have the authority to
stop construction when construction poses a threat to wildlife, and they should have the
authority to rectify situations that pose threats to wildlife. The events associated with
construction monitoring, such as efforts to avoid impacts and findings of dead and
injured wildlife, need to be summarized in a report that is subsequently made available
to the public.
Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be
warranted for habitat loss. An equal area of land should be protected in perpetuity as
close to the project site as possible. Additional compensatory mitigation should be
linked to impacts identified in construction monitoring.
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife
mortality that would be caused by the project-generated 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).
154
27
Pest Control: The project should commit to minimal use of rodenticides and avicides.
It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside the buildings.
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.
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.
Chambers Group. 2022. Biological Resources Reconnaissance Assessment for the
Pentair Expansion Project. Letter to City of Moorpark.
City of Moorpark. 2022. Pentair Warehouse Expansion Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Moorpark, CA. Prepared by Chambers Group for City of
Lancaster, 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.
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.
155
28
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 problem-
solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
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).
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.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the
road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring
surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a
ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of
immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, 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.
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.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson
Bulletin 61:36-47.
156
EXHIBIT B
157
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
prosenfeld@swape.com
August 16, 2022
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project (SCH No. 2022070289)
Dear Ms. Yundt,
We have reviewed the July 2022 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the
Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project (“Project”) located in the City of Moorpark (“City”). The Project
proposes to construct 87,566-square-feet (“SF”) of warehouse space, 3,000-SF of office space, and 185
parking spaces on the 5.65-acre site.
Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s air quality and health
risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of
the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report
(“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality and health risk
impacts that the project may have on the environment.
Air Quality Failure to Adequately Mitigate Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Regarding the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with Project construction, the IS/MND states:
“As detailed in the VCAPCD Guidelines, the VCAPCD has not established quantitative thresholds
for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5); and the 25-pound-per-day threshold for ROG and NOx
does not apply to construction emissions since the emissions are temporary. However, the
VCAPCD indicates that a project that may generate fugitive dust emissions in such quantities as
to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons, or
which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person, or which may
158
2
cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property would have
a significant air quality impact.
In order to reduce air quality impacts from construction activities, the VCAPCD requires that all
projects minimize construction emissions through adherence to the VCAPCD Rule 55 fugitive
dust control measures and minimize ROG through adherence to the VCAPCD Rule 74.2
architectural coating VOC content limits. Compliance with VCAPCD Rules 55 and 74.2 would
ensure that construction emissions would not be generated in such quantities as to cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or that may
endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public. Therefore, a
less than significant air quality impact would occur from construction of the Proposed Project”
(IS/MND, pp. 24).
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND claims that the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
(“VCAPCD”) significant thresholds do not apply to construction emissions, and that the VCAPCD only
requires adherence to Rules 55 and 74.2. However, this is incorrect. According to VCAPCD Air Quality
Assessment Guidelines:
“Construction-related emissions (including portable engines and portable engine-driven
equipment subject to the ARB’s Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program, and used
for construction operations or repair and maintenance activities) of ROC and NOx are not
counted towards the two significance thresholds, since these emissions are temporary.
However, construction-related emissions should be mitigated if estimates of ROC and NOx
emissions from the heavy-duty construction equipment anticipated to be used for a particular
project exceed the 5 pounds per day threshold in the Ojai Planning Area, or the 25 pounds per
day threshold in the remainder of the county. Mitigation measures to reduce such emissions
are listed in Section 7.4.3, “ROC and NOx Construction Mitigation Measures” and in the
mitigation module of URBEMIS” (emphasis added).1
Here, the IS/MND estimates that the VOC and NOx emissions associated with Project construction are
greater than 25 pounds per day (“lbs/day”) (see excerpt below) (p. 18, Table 4).
1 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” October 2003, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 5-3 – 5-4.
159
3
As demonstrated above, the Project’s construction-related VOC and NOx emissions exceed the
applicable VCAPCD threshold. As such, the IS/MND is required to incorporate the following measures
pursuant to VCAPCD Guidelines Section 7.4.3:
“As discussed in Chapter 5, Estimating Ozone Precursor Emissions, ozone precursor emissions
from construction vehicles can be substantial. However, there are very few feasible measures
available to reduce these emissions. APCD recommends the following measures to mitigate
ozone precursor emissions from construction motor vehicles:
1. Minimize equipment idling time.
2. Maintain equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune as per
manufacturers’ specifications.
3. Lengthen the construction period during smog season (May through October), to
minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
4. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric, if feasible.”2
Thus, until the IS/MND incorporates the above-mentioned mitigation, the IS/MND’s air quality analysis,
and subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, should not be relied upon. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without
conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health
risk impacts associated with the Project construction, the IS/MND states:
“Construction of the Proposed Project would generate TAC emissions from the onsite operation
of diesel-powered equipment in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Given the
relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances to the
nearby sensitive receptors that construction equipment would operate, and the short-term
construction schedule, the Proposed Project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 70 years)
substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.
In addition, CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road
diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five
minutes and requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual
reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic
upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet; currently, no commercial operator is allowed
to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment; and by January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed
to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators
need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between
2 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” October 2003, available at:
http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 7-8.
160
4
years 2014 and 2023. Therefore, less-than-significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts
would occur during construction of the Proposed Project” (p. 20).
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant
construction-related health risk impact because the short-term construction duration, limited amount of
heavy-duty equipment, distance from sensitive receptors, and compliance with applicable regulations
would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. Regarding the health risk
impacts associated with the Project operation, the IS/MND states:
“Particulate matter (PM) from diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in most areas; and,
according to The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality 2013 Edition prepared by
CARB, about 80 percent of the outdoor TAC cancer risk is from diesel exhaust. Some chemicals
in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been listed as carcinogens by State
Proposition 65 and the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program.
According to the Project Description (Section 1.3.2 Operations), the Proposed Project would
generate 12 truck deliveries between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and 6 truck deliveries between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or approximately 18 truck deliveries per day. According to the Health
Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects prepared by CAPCOA, July 2009, a truck
distribution facility that accommodates 100 or more truck deliveries per day has the potential to
create significant health risks from TAC emissions. Since the Proposed Project would generate
less than a fifth of the truck deliveries that CAPCOA found would have the potential to create
significant health risks, a less than significant TAC impact would occur during the on-going
operations of the Proposed Project; and no mitigation would be required” (p. 21).
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant
operational health risk impact because the proposed Project would not generate more than 100 truck
trips per day. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as
the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons.
First, the IS/MND indicates that the Project is exempt from the preparation of an HRA according to
CAPCOA, as the proposed warehouse building would not generate more than 100 truck deliveries per
day. This is incorrect, as the above-referenced CAPCOA guidance is in reference to the recommended
preparation of an HRA for the development of a new receptor, not for a new source. Specifically,
CAPCOA states:
“Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that
accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport
refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).”3
As demonstrated above, the correct use of this guidance would be to avoid locating new residential
developments within 1,000-feet of an existing distribution center. As such, the IS/MND’s conclusion that
3“Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf, p. 9, Table 2.
161
5
the Project is exempt from the preparation of an HRA is based on an incorrect interpretation of CAPCOA
guidance and should not be relied upon.
Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent
with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality
impacts to likely health consequences.”4 This poses a problem, as according to the IS/MND, construction
of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment
over a duration of approximately 12 months (p. 6). Furthermore, according to the Traffic and Circulation
Study, provided as Appendix K to the IS/MND, operation of the Project is expected to generate 216 daily
vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing
sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 9, Table 3). However, the IS/MND and associated documents
fail to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the
concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a
reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby
receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions
with potential adverse impacts on human health.
Third, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that warehouse projects prepare a
quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the
organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air
district guidelines.5 In February 2015, OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines:
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. This guidance document describes the
types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all
short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.6 Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
“Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the
project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed
to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”7
Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month
requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a
quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 12-month construction
period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to
4 “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.
5 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6.
6 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
7 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
162
6
estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).8 While the
IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that
the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also
exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the
entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations
reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an
analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM
emissions.
Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or
operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s
excess cancer risk to the VCAPCD specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.9 Thus, in accordance
with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as
a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact
In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening
level air quality dispersion model.10 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the
OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the
appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).11, 12 A Level 2
HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind
concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an
unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling
approach is required prior to approval of the Project.
We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to
residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod
output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure
begins during the third trimester stage of life.13 The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that
construction activities will generate approximately 202 pounds of DPM over the 362-day construction
period.14 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum
8 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4.
9 “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.
10 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf
11 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
12 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at:
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf.
13 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18.
14 See Attachment A for health risk calculations.
163
7
downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability
in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission
rate by the following equation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 201.9 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸362 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00293 grams per second (“g/s”).
Subtracting the 362-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed
that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational
DPM for an additional 29.01 years. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that
operational activities will generate approximately 6 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation.
Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following
emission rate for Project operation:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 5.9 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸=𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.0000849 g/s. Construction and
operation were simulated as a 5.65-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate
dimensions of 214- by 107-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the
height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical
dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.
An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction
distribution. The population of Moorpark was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.15
The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations
from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the
annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour
concentration by 10% in screening procedures.16 According to the IS/MND the nearest sensitive
receptors are single-family homes located adjacent to the Project site (p. 19). However, review of the
AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 100 meters from the
Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is
approximately 4.632 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour
concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.4632 µg/m3 for Project
construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN
is 0.1342 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 100 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour
concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.01342 µg/m3 for Project
operation at the MEIR.
15 “Moorpark.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0649138.
16 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October
1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf.
164
8
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA, as recommended by VCAPCD.17 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air
Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-
point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to
account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess
risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the
daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of
time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our
screening-level HRA are as follows:
Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk
Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)18
Age
Sensitivity
Factor 19
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home 20
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)21
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to
effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the
cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day
(mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the
following dose algorithm: 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝= 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝× 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
17 “Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines.” Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, October
2003, available at: http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf, p. 6-6 – 6-8.
18 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.
19 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3.
20 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5, Table 8.4.
21 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February
2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.
165
9
Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day)
A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group: 𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴= 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
where:
DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group
CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1
ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only)
ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years)
Consistent with the 362-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for
construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), and the first 0.74 years of
the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for
the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.26 years of the infantile
stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our
calculations are shown in the table below.
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration
(ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.4632 5.35E-06
Construction 0.74 0.4632 4.80E-05
Operation 1.26 0.0134 2.36E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 5.03E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0134 3.50E-06
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0134 5.39E-07
Lifetime 30 5.97E-05
166
10
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants,
children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 100 meters away, over the course of Project
construction and operation, are approximately 5.35, 50.3, 3.5, and 0.539 in one million, respectively.
The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 59.7 in one
million. The infant and lifetime cancer risks exceed the VCAPCD threshold of 10 in one million, thus
resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND.
Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on
the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential
link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments
iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and
refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.
EPA, 1992).
In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default
values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier)
of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).
The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening-
level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and
exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.”
As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling
approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project
could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined
health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both
Project construction and operation.
Mitigation Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
The IS/MND’s analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant air quality
and health risk 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. Feasible
mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices
document.22 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures
should be made:
• Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.
22 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice.
167
11
• Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
• Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for
electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools
whenever feasible.
• Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area.
• Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for
particulates or ozone for the project area.
• Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes.
• Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all
equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission
control tier classifications.
• Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to
identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts.
• Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile
organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
• Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction
employees.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for
construction employees.
• Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating
greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions
equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13,
Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site
demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection
by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission
beginning in 2030.
• Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary
electrical charging stations provided.
• Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business
operations.
• Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off
engines when not in use.
• Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery
areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air
district, and the building manager.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air
filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the
project.
• Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air
monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project,
168
12
and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not
mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the
affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid
exposure to unhealthy air.
• Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the
project.
• Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the
warehouse use could include refrigeration.
• Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking
spaces at the project.
• Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation
capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.
• Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.
• Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks.
• Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-
occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation,
including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
• Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated
parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking.
• Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards.
• Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
• Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route.
• Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project
area.
• Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel
technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB-approved courses. Also
require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make
records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.
• Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay
program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
• Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and
Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into
the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and
operation. A EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include
updated air quality and health risk analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are
implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The analysis should also demonstrate a
commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the
Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
169
13
Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become
available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional
information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of
care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants
practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is
made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing
results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was
reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by
third parties.
Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations
Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment D: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV
170
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.1018 Total DPM (lbs)201.9265753 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.00295
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.557808219 Total DPM (g)91593.89458 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.016164384
Construction Duration (days)362 Emission Rate (g/s)0.002928493 Total DPM (lbs)5.9
Total DPM (lbs)201.9265753 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)8.4863E-05
Total DPM (g)91593.89458 Total Acreage 5.65 Release Height (meters)3
Start Date 1/1/2023 Max Horizontal (meters)213.84 Total Acreage 5.65
End Date 12/29/2023 Min Horizontal (meters)106.92 Max Horizontal (meters)213.84
Construction Days 362 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)106.92
Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5
Population 35,975 Setting Urban
Start Date 1/1/2023 Population 35,975
End Date 12/29/2023
Total Construction Days 362
Total Years of Construction 0.99
Total Years of Operation 29.01
Construction Operation
2023 Total Emission Rate
Attachment A
171
Start date and time 08/11/22 12:09:04
AERSCREEN 21112
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Construction
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Construction
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.293E‐02 g/s 0.232E‐01 lb/hr
Area Height:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 213.84 meters 701.57 feet
Area Source Width: 106.92 meters 350.79 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode:URBAN
Population:35975
Dist to Ambient Air:1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
Attachment B
172
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
173
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
174
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 08/11/22 12:13:25
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
175
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
176
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
177
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
178
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
179
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
180
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
181
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
182
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
183
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
184
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 08/11/22 12:13:36
REFINE started 08/11/22 12:13:36
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
185
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 08/11/22 12:13:37
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 08/11/22 12:13:39
186
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV
ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT
0.35387E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38781E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41721E+01 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44205E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46322E+01 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.46908E+01 108.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41937E+01 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29347E+01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23714E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20210E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17504E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15359E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13632E+01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12208E+01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11026E+01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10028E+01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91689E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84368E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.77964E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72351E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.67412E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.63004E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.59104E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55628E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52425E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49541E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
187
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46933E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44565E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42401E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40391E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38547E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36836E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35255E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33791E+00 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32433E+00 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31170E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29978E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28864E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27822E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26844E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25927E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25063E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24250E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23476E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22744E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22052E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21396E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20774E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20176E+00 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19608E+00 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19067E+00 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18552E+00 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18061E+00 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
188
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17595E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17147E+00 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16719E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16308E+00 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15916E+00 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15540E+00 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15179E+00 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14833E+00 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14501E+00 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14182E+00 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13874E+00 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13579E+00 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13292E+00 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13016E+00 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12750E+00 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12493E+00 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12246E+00 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12005E+00 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11772E+00 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11547E+00 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11329E+00 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11118E+00 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10914E+00 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10717E+00 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10526E+00 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10341E+00 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10161E+00 1950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
189
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99869E-01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99237E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97563E-01 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.95937E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.94357E-01 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.92822E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91330E-01 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89878E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.88466E-01 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.87092E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.85755E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84453E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83185E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.81949E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.80745E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.79571E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.78427E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.77310E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.76221E-01 2425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.75158E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.74120E-01 2475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.73108E-01 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72118E-01 2525.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.71152E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.70208E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.69286E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68384E-01 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
190
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.67502E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.66640E-01 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.65797E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64972E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.64165E-01 2750.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.63375E-01 2775.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.62602E-01 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.61845E-01 2825.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.61104E-01 2850.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.60377E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.59666E-01 2900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58969E-01 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58286E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.57617E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56961E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56318E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55687E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55068E-01 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.54462E-01 3100.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53866E-01 3125.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53282E-01 3150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52709E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52146E-01 3199.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.51594E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.51051E-01 3250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50519E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49996E-01 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
191
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49482E-01 3325.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48978E-01 3350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48482E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47995E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47516E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47045E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46583E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46128E-01 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45681E-01 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45242E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44810E-01 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44384E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43966E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43555E-01 3650.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43150E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42751E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42359E-01 3724.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41974E-01 3750.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41594E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41220E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40852E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40489E-01 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40132E-01 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39781E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39435E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39093E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38757E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
192
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38426E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38100E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37779E-01 4050.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37462E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37150E-01 4100.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36843E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36539E-01 4150.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36240E-01 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35946E-01 4200.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35655E-01 4225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35368E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35086E-01 4275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34807E-01 4300.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34532E-01 4325.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34261E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33994E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33730E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33469E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33212E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32959E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32709E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32462E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32218E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31978E-01 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31740E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31506E-01 4625.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31274E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
193
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31046E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30820E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30597E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30377E-01 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30160E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29945E-01 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29733E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29524E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29317E-01 4875.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29113E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28911E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28711E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28514E-01 4975.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28319E-01 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
194
Start date and time 08/11/22 12:14:16
AERSCREEN 21112
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Operation
Pentair Warehouse Expansion, Operation
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
METRIC ENGLISH
** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Emission Rate: 0.849E‐04 g/s 0.674E‐03 lb/hr
Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
Area Source Length: 213.84 meters 701.57 feet
Area Source Width: 106.92 meters 350.79 feet
Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
Model Mode: URBAN
Population: 35975
Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet
** BUILDING DATA **
195
No Building Downwash Parameters
** TERRAIN DATA **
No Terrain Elevations
Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet
Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet
No flagpole receptors
No discrete receptors used
** FUMIGATION DATA **
No fumigation requested
** METEOROLOGY DATA **
Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F
Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s
196
Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters
Dominant Surface Profile: Urban
Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture
Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted
DEBUG OPTION ON
AERSCREEN output file:
2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation.out
*** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin
No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run
**************************************************
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET
Obtaining surface characteristics...
197
Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture
Season Albedo Bo zo
Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000
Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000
Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000
Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000
Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl
Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl
Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe
FLOWSECTOR started 08/11/22 12:19:27
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Winter
Processing surface roughness sector 1
198
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
199
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
200
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Spring
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5
201
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20
202
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Summer
Processing surface roughness sector 1
203
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
204
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
205
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
********************************************
Running AERMOD
Processing Autumn
Processing surface roughness sector 1
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 1
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 2
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5
206
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 3
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 4
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 5
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
207
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 6
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
*****************************************************
Processing wind flow sector 7
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
*** NONE ***
FLOWSECTOR ended 08/11/22 12:19:38
REFINE started 08/11/22 12:19:38
AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0
******** WARNING MESSAGES ********
208
*** NONE ***
REFINE ended 08/11/22 12:19:39
**********************************************
AERSCREEN Finished Successfully
With no errors or warnings
Check log file for details
***********************************************
Ending date and time 08/11/22 12:19:40
209
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV
ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT
0.10254E+00 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11238E+00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12090E+00 50.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12809E+00 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13423E+00 100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
* 0.13593E+00 108.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12152E+00 125.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.85039E-01 150.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68718E-01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58562E-01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50721E-01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.44506E-01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39502E-01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35377E-01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31951E-01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29058E-01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26569E-01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24448E-01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22592E-01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20965E-01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19534E-01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18257E-01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17127E-01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16120E-01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15191E-01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14356E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
210
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13600E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12914E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12287E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11704E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11170E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10674E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10216E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97917E-02 800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.93982E-02 825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.90322E-02 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.86870E-02 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83641E-02 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.80620E-02 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.77787E-02 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.75128E-02 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.72627E-02 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.70270E-02 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.68027E-02 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.65906E-02 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.63900E-02 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.62000E-02 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.60197E-02 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.58465E-02 1175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.56819E-02 1200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.55252E-02 1225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.53760E-02 1250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.52337E-02 1275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
211
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.50986E-02 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.49688E-02 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.48447E-02 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.47257E-02 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.46120E-02 1400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.45031E-02 1425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.43986E-02 1450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42983E-02 1475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.42020E-02 1500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.41095E-02 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.40204E-02 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.39347E-02 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.38518E-02 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.37718E-02 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36947E-02 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.36202E-02 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.35484E-02 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34786E-02 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.34111E-02 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.33459E-02 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32828E-02 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.32218E-02 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31627E-02 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.31055E-02 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.30500E-02 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29965E-02 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.29445E-02 1950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
212
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28939E-02 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28756E-02 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.28271E-02 2025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27800E-02 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.27342E-02 2075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26897E-02 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26465E-02 2125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.26044E-02 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25635E-02 2175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.25237E-02 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24850E-02 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24472E-02 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.24105E-02 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23747E-02 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23398E-02 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.23058E-02 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22726E-02 2375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22402E-02 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.22087E-02 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21779E-02 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21478E-02 2475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.21185E-02 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20898E-02 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20618E-02 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20344E-02 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.20077E-02 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19816E-02 2625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
213
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19560E-02 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19311E-02 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.19066E-02 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18827E-02 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18593E-02 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18364E-02 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.18140E-02 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17921E-02 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17706E-02 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17496E-02 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17290E-02 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.17088E-02 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16890E-02 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16696E-02 2975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16506E-02 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16319E-02 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.16137E-02 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15957E-02 3074.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15781E-02 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15609E-02 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15440E-02 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15274E-02 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.15111E-02 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14951E-02 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14793E-02 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14639E-02 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14488E-02 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
214
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14339E-02 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14192E-02 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.14049E-02 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13908E-02 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13769E-02 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13633E-02 3450.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13498E-02 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13367E-02 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13237E-02 3525.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.13110E-02 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12985E-02 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12861E-02 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12740E-02 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12621E-02 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12504E-02 3675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12388E-02 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12275E-02 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12163E-02 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.12053E-02 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11944E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11838E-02 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11733E-02 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11629E-02 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11527E-02 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11427E-02 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11328E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11231E-02 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
215
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11135E-02 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.11040E-02 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10947E-02 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10856E-02 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10765E-02 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10676E-02 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10588E-02 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10502E-02 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10416E-02 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10332E-02 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10249E-02 4250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10167E-02 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10086E-02 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.10006E-02 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.99280E-03 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.98504E-03 4375.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.97740E-03 4400.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.96985E-03 4425.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.96241E-03 4450.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.95506E-03 4475.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.94781E-03 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.94066E-03 4525.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.93360E-03 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.92662E-03 4575.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91974E-03 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.91295E-03 4625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.90625E-03 4650.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
216
file:///C/Users/stuar/Downloads/2022.08.11_AERSCREEN_PentairWarehouseExpansion_Operation_max_conc_distance.txt[8/16/2022 1:46:22 PM]
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89962E-03 4675.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.89308E-03 4700.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.88663E-03 4725.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.88025E-03 4750.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.87396E-03 4775.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.86774E-03 4800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.86159E-03 4825.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.85553E-03 4850.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84953E-03 4875.00 0.00 30.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.84361E-03 4900.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83776E-03 4924.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.83198E-03 4950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.82627E-03 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
0.82062E-03 5000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0
1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0
217
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
mhagemann@swape.com
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation,
stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and
Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional
Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with
EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major
military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic
characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE,
Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include
consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from
industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions.
Positions Matt has held include:
•Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present);
•Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017;
•Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003);
Attachment C
218
2
•Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004);
•Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989–
1998);
•Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000);
•Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 –
1998);
•Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995);
•Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
•Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports
and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard
to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions,
and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead
agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks
and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from
toxins and Valley Fever.
•Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial
facilities.
•Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA
compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination.
•Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns.
•Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications
for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission.
•Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S.
•Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in
Southern California drinking water wells.
•Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the
review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas
stations throughout California.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
•Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony
by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology
of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
•Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking
water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony
against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies.
•Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by
MTBE in California and New York.
219
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
220
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
221
5
principles into the policy‐making process.
•Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for
timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
•Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical
models to determine slope stability.
•Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource
protection.
•Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the
city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later
listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern
Oregon. Duties included the following:
•Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling.
•Conducted aquifer tests.
•Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university
levels:
•At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in
environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater
contamination.
•Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students.
•Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California
where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public
Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and
Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water
in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las
Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
222
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.
223
7
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished
report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related
to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft
Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright
Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund
Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air
Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic
Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui,
October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu,
Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air
and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases
in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater
Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐
contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
224
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.
225
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: prosenfeld@swape.com
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling
Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist
Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.
M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.
B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for
evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and
transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.
Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks,
storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil
drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and
modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in
surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by
water systems and via vapor intrusion.
Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites
containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote,
perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates
(MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from
various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the
evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist
at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert
witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an
expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad,
agricultural, and military sources.
Attachment D
226
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.
227
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.
228
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
229
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.
230
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.
231
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.
232
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
233
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
234
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
235
EXHIBIT 4
236
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
www.wildlife.ca.gov
August 17, 2022
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
SFarley@moorparkca.gov
Subject: Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
SCH No. 2022070289; City of Moorpark, Ventura County
Dear Ms. Farley:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW ) has reviewed the City of Moorpark’s
(City) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Pentair Warehouse Expansion Project
(Project). The City, as Lead Agency, prepared a MND pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et. seq.) with the purpose of informing
decision-makers and the public regarding potential environmental effects related to the Project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those
activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife or be subject to Fish
and Game Code.
CDFW’s Role
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources
in trust for the people of the state [Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Pub.
Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, [§ 15386,
subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection,
and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically
sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). CDFW is also directed to provide
biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on
projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife
resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources
Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise
regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed
alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, § 1600 et seq.). To the extent
implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” of any species protected under
the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.), or CESA-
listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & Game Code, §1900
et seq.), CDFW recommends the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the
Fish and Game Code.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
237
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 2 of 13
Project Description and Summary
Objective: The proposed Project will expand on the Pentair pool supplies warehouse directly to
the west of the Project site. The Project includes the following activities:
Structures and Amenities
The Project as proposed will include the construction of a 90,566 square foot industrial building.
The site will also include 21 truck-loading spaces, 179 parking stalls, and an underground storm
drain chamber. A secondary emergency exit access bridge will also be constructed along Los
Angeles Avenue and span over the Gabbert Canyon Channel. The portion of the channel which
is proposed for the driveway will be replaced by a concrete box culvert. The bridge will be 35
feet wide.
Exterior Lighting
Eight light poles will be placed throughout the parking lot and eighteen wall pack light poles will
be placed adjacent to the building. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) will be used for the project.
Grading and Construction
Project activities include site preparation, paving, grading, excavation, compaction and building
construction. Approximately 11,307 cubic yards of cut and fill will be used for this Project, offsite
fill will not be needed. All equipment will be staged within the Project site and construction
vehicles and heavy equipment will be used on site. Construction activities of the Proposed
Project will be scheduled in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Title 17.
Landscape Improvements
Landscaping is anticipated to comprise 16.9% of the total project area. Landscaping will include
drought-tolerant plants, trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Landscaped areas will be irrigated
with an automatic irrigation system.
Location: The Project site is in the City of Moorpark directly to the east of the Pentair
warehouse. The site is surrounded by industrial and agricultural land uses. The Gabbert Canyon
channel is to the south of the site.
Comments and Recommendations
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately
identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect
impacts on fish and wildlife biological resources based on the planned activities of this proposed
Project. CDFW recommends the measures below be included in a science-based monitoring
program with adaptive management strategies as part of the Project’s CEQA mitigation,
monitoring and reporting program (Public Resources Code, § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines, §
15097). Additional comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the
document.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
238
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 3 of 13
Specific Comments
Comment #1: Impacts to Aquatic and Riparian Resources, Lake and Streambed
Alteration Agreement (LSA)
Issue: The Project may result in direct or indirect impacts to the Gabbert Canyon channel and
Arroyo Simi creek. It is also unclear if the feature which cuts diagonally through the site provides
a hydrologic function.
Specific Impacts: The Project has a stream along its southern border. The Gabbert Canyon
channel, a concrete-lined channel which drains into Arroyo Simi creek abuts the project site.
The proposed Project may diminish onsite and downstream water quality, alter the hydrologic
and geomorphic processes, and impact specially listed downstream species.
Why impacts would occur: Within the MND it states, “A total of 0.02 acre of permanent
impacts to waters of the State will occur as a result of the Project; thus, a State 401 certification
and/or CDFW State Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required for Project authorization.”
CDFW concurs with the Project’s statement to notify CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code,
section 1600 et seq. Project implementation includes grading, excavating, material staging,
grubbing, and vegetation clearing. Debris, soil, silt, sawdust, rubbish, raw cement/concrete, or
washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or
any other substances which could be hazardous or deleterious to aquatic life, wildlife, or riparian
habitat resulting from Project related activities may enter the stream.
Further, it is unclear whether stream delineation surveys have been conducted onsite, a feature
which appears to have some hydrological function is present cutting diagonally through the
Project site. When referenced on Google Earth the feature has been devoid of vegetation for
years, suggesting water may flow along the surface sporadically. CDFW would like confirmation
on whether this feature does or does not fall within State jurisdiction. stream delineation surveys
should evaluate all rivers and streams, including culverts, ditches, storm channels that may
transport water, sediment, and pollutants and discharge into rivers and streams.
Evidence Impact Would Be Significant: Fish and Game Code, section 1602 requires any
person, State or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify CDFW prior to beginning
any activity that may do one or more of the following: divert or obstruct the natural flow of any
river, stream, or lake; change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; use
material from any river, stream, or lake; or, deposit or dispose of material into any river, stream,
or lake. The Project may adversely affect the existing hydrology pattern of the Project site as
well as downstream. This may occur through the alteration of flows to streams. In addition,
impacts to biological resources offsite, may occur. The Project may substantially adversely
affect the existing stormwater flows into streams through the alteration of drainages on site. It is
unclear if these stormwater diversions would impact biological resources offsite because an
investigation has not been made to determine so. Inadequate investigation may result in the
Project continuing to have a substantial adverse direct and cumulative effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW.
Mitigation Measure #1: The Project applicant (or “entity”) should provide written notification to
CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
239
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 4 of 13
and other information, CDFW shall determine whether a LSA Agreement is required prior to
conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a LSA may be obtained by
accessing CDFW’s web site at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa.
If necessary, CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement for a Project that is subject to CEQA will
require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible
Agency, CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for the Project. To
minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under
CEQA, the CEQA document should fully identify the potential impacts to streams or riparian
resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring, and reporting commitments
for issuance of the LSA Agreement.
Mitigation Measure #2: Any LSA Agreement issued for the Project by CDFW may include
additional measures protective of streambeds on and downstream of the Project such as
additional erosion and pollution control measures. To compensate for any on-site and off-site
impacts to riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA Agreement may
include the following: avoidance of resources, on-site or off-site creation, enhancement, or
restoration, and/or protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity.
Comment #2: Timing of Surveys
Issue: It is unclear if the project will impact sensitive plants and/or sensitive plant communities.
Focused botanical surveys were not conducted, and reconnaissance level surveys were done
outside of regular bloom times.
Specific impact: Due to the lack of protocol surveys it is unclear if special-status plants and/or
communities will be impacted by Project activities. Without protocol surveys the Project may
result in a significant impact to special-status plants/communities. Development of the area and
thinning of vegetation for fuel modification will result in the loss of resources.
Why impact would occur: A reconnaissance level survey was done within the Project footprint
in 2021, but was conducted in the month of December, outside of regular bloom times for plants
in the geographical area. Further, only the project footprint was surveyed. CDFW recommends
the Applicant survey the entirety of the lot to avoid direct and indirect impacts to specially listed
plants and sensitive vegetation communities in the surrounding area. Absence was determined
based only on literature and a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
Presence/absence determinations of rare plants in the Project area, specifically areas that
would be impacted due to Project implementation, should be determined based on recent
surveys.
Evidence impact would be significant: Impacts to special-status plant species should be
considered significant under CEQA unless they are clearly mitigated below a level of
significance. Inadequate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for impacts to these
sensitive plant species will result in a Project(s) continuing to have a substantial adverse direct,
indirect, and cumulative effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
240
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 5 of 13
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s):
Mitigation Measure #1: CDFW recommends surveying the project footprint and the remaining
acreage of the lot to produce a plant communities map. Vegetation surveys should be
conducted following systematic field techniques outlined by CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying
and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural
Communities (CDFW 2018). The amount of time and level of effort for a given should be
determined based on the vegetation and its overall diversity and structural complexity (CDFW
2018). For example, one person-hour per eight acres per survey date is needed for a
comprehensive field survey in grassland with medium diversity and moderate terrain, with
additional time allocated for species identification (CDFW 2018). Additionally, considerations
should be made regarding timing of these field surveys to ensure accuracy in determining what
plants exist on site.
To determine the rarity ranking of vegetation communities on a specific Project site(s), CDFW
utilizes vegetation descriptions found in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV). The MCV
alliance/association community names should be provided as CDFW only tracks rare natural
communities using this classification system (found online at http://vegetation.cnps.org/). CDFW
recommends the environmental document provide measures to fully mitigate the loss of
individual Endangered Species Act (ESA)- and CESA-listed plants and habitat.
1. The MND should provide a detailed map (1:24,000 or larger) showing which plants or
populations will be impacted and provide a table that clearly documents the number of
plants and acres of supporting habitat impacted, and plant composition (e.g., density,
cover, abundance) within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation
class; density, cover, abundance of each species).
2. The MND should provide species-specific measures for on-site mitigation. Each species-
specific mitigation plan should adopt an ecosystem-based approach and be of sufficient
detail and resolution to describe the following at a minimum: 1) identify the impact and
level of impact (e.g., acres or individual plants/habitat impacted); 2) location of on-site
mitigation and adequacy of the location(s) to serve as mitigation; 3) assessment of
appropriate reference sites; 4) scientific [genus and species (subspecies/variety if
applicable)] of plants being used for restoration; 5) location(s) of propagule source; 6)
species-specific planting methods (i.e., container or seed); 7) measurable goals and
success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate,
absolute cover); 8) long-term monitoring, and; 9) adaptive management techniques.
Mitigation Measure #2: If rare or sensitive plants are found on or near the footprint of the
Project, the MND should provide species-specific measures within the MND to fully avoid
impacts to all ESA- and CESA-listed plants. This may include flagging all plants and/or
perimeter of populations; no work buffers around plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged
perimeter plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground disturbing activities within protected areas;
relocation of staging and other material piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on
herbicide use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100 feet of sensitive
plants; and worker education and training.
Mitigation Measure #3: If rare or sensitive plants/communities are impacted on or near the
footprint of the Project, CDFW recommends the MND provide measures to fully mitigate the loss
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
241
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 6 of 13
of individual ESA- and CESA-listed plants and habitat. The Project proponent should mitigate at
a ratio sufficient to achieve a no-net loss for impacts to special status plant species and their
associated habitat. This should be for the number of plants replaced to number impacted,
including acres of habitat created to acres of habitat impacted.
Comment #3: Impacts to Non-Game Mammals and Wildlife
Issue: Wildlife may still move through the Project site during the daytime or nighttime. CDFW is
concerned that any wildlife potentially moving through or seeking temporary refuge on the
Project site may be directly impacted during Project activities and construction. Any final fence,
or other design features, design should allow for wildlife movement.
Specific impacts: Project activities and construction equipment may directly impact wildlife and
birds moving through or seeking temporary refuge on site. This could result in wildlife and bird
mortality. Furthermore, depending on the final fencing design, the Project may cumulatively
restrict wildlife movement opportunity.
Why impacts would occur: Direct impacts to wildlife may occur from: ground disturbing
activities (e.g., staging, access, excavation, grading); wildlife being trapped or entangled in
construction materials and erection of restrictive fencing; and wildlife could be trampled by
heavy equipment operating in the Project site.
Evidence impact would be significant: Mammals occurring naturally in California are
considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by State law from take and/or
harassment (Fish & Game Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs, § 251.1).
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): CDFW recommends the
following four mitigation measures to avoid and minimize direct impacts to wildlife during Project
construction and activities.
Mitigation Measure #1: If fencing is proposed for use during construction or during the life of
the Project, fences should be constructed with materials that are not harmful to wildlife.
Prohibited materials include, but are not limited to, spikes, glass, razor, or barbed wire. Fencing
should also be minimized so as not to restrict free wildlife movement through habitat areas.
CDFW recommends the City consider permeable fencing as part of its mitigation for Project-
related impacts. Wildlife impermeable fencing is fencing that prevents or creates a barrier for the
passage of wildlife from one side to the other. Los Angeles County’s Significant Ecological
Areas Ordinance Implementation Guide (https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/sea/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/SEA-IG-2-6-20.pdf) offers additional information on permeable fencing
as well as design standards. CDFW recommends reviewing those design standards.
Mitigation Measure #2: To avoid direct mortality, a qualified biological monitor should be on
site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities to move out of harm’s way
special status species or other wildlife of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing
or Project-related construction activities. Salvaged wildlife of low mobility should be removed
and placed onto adjacent and suitable (i.e., species appropriate) habitat out of harm’s way.
It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife does not constitute effective
mitigation for the purposes of offsetting Program impacts associated with habitat loss.
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
242
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 7 of 13
Mitigation Measure #3: Grubbing and grading should be done to avoid islands of habitat where
wildlife may take refuge and later be killed by heavy equipment. Grubbing and grading should
be done from the center of the Project site, working outward towards adjacent habitat off site
where wildlife may safely escape.
Additional Recommendations
Out of Harm’s Way. CDFW recommends a qualified biologist is on site during all ground
disturbing activities to salvage any reptiles or fossorial species.
Fuel Modification. If the Project includes fuel modification, CDFW recommends that the final
environmental include avoidance and mitigation measures for any fuel modification activities
conducted within and adjacent to the Project area. A weed management plan should be
developed for all areas adjacent to open space that will be subject to fuel modification
disturbance. CDFW also recommends that any irrigation proposed in fuel modification zones
does not allow for the introduction of invasive Argentine ants.
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1),
CDFW has provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation measures and
recommendations in the form of an attached Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. A
final MMRP should reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the Project’s
final on and/or off-site mitigation plans.
Filing Fees
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing
fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the County
and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is
required for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & Game Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately
analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources. CDFW requests an
opportunity to review and comment on any response that the City has to our comments and to
receive notification of any forthcoming hearing date(s) for the Project [CEQA Guidelines, §
15073(e)]. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Angela
Castanon, Environmental Scientist, at Angela.Castanon@wildlife.ca.gov
Sincerely,
Erinn Wilson-Olgin
Environmental Program Manager I
South Coast Region
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
243
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 8 of 13
ec: CDFW
Steve Gibson, Los Alamitos – Steve.Gibson@wildlife.ca.gov
Emily Galli, Fillmore – Emily.Galli@wildlife.ca.gov
Cindy Hailey, San Diego – Cindy.Hailey@wildlife.ca.gov
CEQA Program Coordinator, Sacramento – CEQACommentLetters@wildlife.ca.gov
Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse, Sacramento – State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov
References:
[CDFW ] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural
Communities. Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
Hinshaw, J.M., Holmstead, G.L., Cypher, B.L., Anderson D.C. 1998. Effects of Simulated Field
Disturbance and Topsoil Salvage on Eristrium Hooveri. Accessed
from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41425279
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
244
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Attachment A: Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan
CDFW recommends the following language to be incorporated into a future environmental document for the Project. A final
MMRP should reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the Project’s final on and/or off -site mitigation
plans.
Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation Measure (MM) or Recommendation (REC) Timing Responsible Party
MM-BIO-1-
LSA
The Project applicant (or “entity”) should provide written notification
to CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game
Code. Based on this notification and other information, CDFW shall
determine whether a LSA Agreement is required prior to
conducting the proposed activities. A notification package for a
LSA may be obtained by accessing CDFW’s web site at
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/lsa.
If necessary, CDFW’s issuance of an LSA Agreement for a Project
that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by
CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency,
CDFW may consider the CEQA document of the Lead Agency for
the Project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW
pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the CEQA
document should fully identify the potential impacts to streams or
riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA
Agreement.
Prior to
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
245
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 10 of 13
MM-BIO-2-
LSA
Any LSA Agreement issued for the Project by CDFW may include
additional measures protective of streambeds on and downstream
of the Project such as additional erosion and pollution control
measures. To compensate for any on-site and off-site impacts to
riparian resources, additional mitigation conditioned in any LSA
Agreement may include the following: avoidance of resources, on-
site or off-site creation, enhancement, or restoration, and/or
protection and management of mitigation lands in perpetuity.
Prior to/
During
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
MM-BIO-3-
Impacts to
Special Status
Plants and
Communities
CDFW recommends surveying the project footprint and the
remaining acreage of the lot to produce a plant communities map.
Vegetation surveys should be conducted following systematic field
techniques outlined by CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). The amount of time
and level of effort for a given should be determined based on the
vegetation and its overall diversity and structural complexity
(CDFW 2018). For example, one person-hour per eight acres per
survey date is needed for a comprehensive field survey in
grassland with medium diversity and moderate terrain, with
additional time allocated for species identification (CDFW 2018).
Additionally, considerations should be made regarding timing of
these field surveys to ensure accuracy in determining what plants
exist on site.
To determine the rarity ranking of vegetation communities on a
specific Project site(s), CDFW utilizes vegetation descriptions
found in the Manual of California Vegetation (MCV). The MCV
alliance/association community names should be provided as
CDFW only tracks rare natural communities using this
classification system (found online at
http://vegetation.cnps.org/). CDFW recommends the environmental
document provide measures to fully mitigate the loss of individual
ESA- and CESA-listed plants and habitat.
Prior to
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
246
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 11 of 13
1. The MND should provide a detailed map (1:24,000 or
larger) showing which plants or populations will be
impacted and provide a table that clearly documents the
number of plants and acres of supporting habitat impacted,
and plant composition (e.g., density, cover, abundance)
within impacted habitat (e.g., species list separated by
vegetation class; density, cover, abundance of each
species).
2. The MND should provide species-specific measures for on-
site mitigation. Each species-specific mitigation plan should
adopt an ecosystem-based approach and be of sufficient
detail and resolution to describe the following at a
minimum: 1) identify the impact and level of impact (e.g.,
acres or individual plants/habitat impacted); 2) location of
on-site mitigation and adequacy of the location(s) to serve
as mitigation; 3) assessment of appropriate reference sites;
4) scientific [genus and species (subspecies/variety if
applicable)] of plants being used for restoration; 5)
location(s) of propagule source; 6) species-specific planting
methods (i.e., container or seed); 7) measurable goals and
success criteria for establishing self -sustaining populations
(e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover); 8) long-term
monitoring, and; 9) adaptive management techniques.
MM-BIO-4-
Impacts to
Special Status
Plants and
Communities
If rare or sensitive plants are found on or near the footprint of the
Project, the MND should provide species-specific measures to fully
avoid impacts to all ESA- and CESA-listed plants. This may
include flagging all plants and/or perimeter of populations; no work
buffers around plants and/or populations (e.g., flagged perimeter
plus 50 feet); restrictions on ground disturbing activities within
protected areas; relocation of staging and other material
Prior to
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
247
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 12 of 13
piling areas away from protected areas; restrictions on herbicide
use and/or type of herbicide and/or application method within 100
feet of sensitive plants; and worker education and training.
MM-BIO-5-
Impacts to
Special Status
Plants and
Communities
If rare or sensitive plants/communities are impacted on or near the
footprint of the Project, CDFW recommends the MND provide
measures to fully mitigate the loss of individual ESA- and CESA-
listed plants and habitat. The Project proponent should mitigate at
a ratio sufficient to achieve a no-net loss for impacts to special
status plant species and their associated habitat. This should be
for the number of plants replaced to number impacted, including
acres of habitat created to acres of habitat impacted.
Prior to
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
MM-BIO-6-
Impacts to Non-
Game Mammals
and Wildlife
If fencing is proposed for use during construction or during the life
of the Project, fences should be constructed with materials that are
not harmful to wildlife. Prohibited materials include, but are not
limited to, spikes, glass, razor, or barbed wire. Fencing should also
be minimized so as not to restrict free wildlife movement through
habitat areas. Los Angeles County’s Significant Ecological Areas
Ordinance Implementation Guide
(https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/sea/wp-
content/uploads/2020/02/SEA-IG-2-6-20.pdf) offers additional
information on permeable fencing as well as design standards.
CDFW recommends reviewing those design standards.
Prior
to/During
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
MM-BIO-7-
Impacts to Non-
Game Mammals
and Wildlife
To avoid direct mortality, a qualified biological monitor should be
on site prior to and during ground and habitat disturbing activities
to move out of harm’s way special status species or other wildlife
of low mobility that would be injured or killed by grubbing or
Project-related construction activities. Salvaged wildlife of low
mobility should be removed and placed onto adjacent and suitable
(i.e., species appropriate) habitat out of harm’s way.
It should be noted that the temporary relocation of on-site wildlife
does not constitute effective mitigation for the purposes of
offsetting Program impacts associated with habitat loss.
During
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
248
Ms. Shanna Farley
City of Moorpark
August 17, 2022
Page 13 of 13
MM-BIO-8-
Impacts to Non-
Game Mammals
and Wildlife
Grubbing and grading should be done to avoid islands of habitat
where wildlife may take refuge and later be killed by heavy
equipment. Grubbing and grading should be done from the center
of the Project site, working outward towards adjacent habitat off
site where wildlife may safely escape.
During
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
REC-1-
Out of Harm’s
Way
CDFW recommends a qualified biologist is on site during all
ground disturbing activities to salvage any reptiles or fossorial
species.
Prior to/
During
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
REC-2-
Fuel
Modification
If the Project includes fuel modification, CDFW recommends that
the final environmental include avoidance and mitigation measures
for any fuel modification activities conducted within and adjacent to
the Project area. A weed management plan should be developed
for all areas adjacent to open space that will be subject to fuel
modification disturbance. CDFW also recommends that any
irrigation proposed in fuel modification zones drain back into the
development and not onto natural habitat land as perennial
sources of water allow for the introduction of invasive Argentine
ants.
Prior to/
During
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
REC-3-
MMRP
Per Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(1), CDFW has
provided the City with a summary of our suggested mitigation
measures and recommendations in the form of an attached Draft
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan. A final MMRP should
reflect results following additional plant and wildlife surveys and the
Project’s final on and/or off-site mitigation plans.
Prior to
Project
construction
and activities
City of Moorpark/
Applicant
DocuSign Envelope ID: FAA17B67-8F7C-43C3-9146-9242BB01917C
249