Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo_Hellman Solar MND_17FEB2026 Technical Memorandum February 18, 2026 To Elizabeth Lambe, Executive Director Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust Project No. Copy to From Brian Zitt, Principal Biologist All Hands Biological Contact Information bzitt@allhandsbio.com 657-204-2686 Project Name Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Subject Review of the Project’s Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents 1. Introduction On behalf of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Land Trust (LCWLT), All Hands Biological (AHB) has conducted a n independent review of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project in the City of Seal Beach, located on a 4.66 acre site within the existing Hellman Ranch Oil and Gas Production Facility, immediately adjacent to the Los Cerritos Wetland Authority. The review focused on an assessment of the MND’s biological resources which included the 2023 Biological Technical Report (BTR), Mitigation and Monitoring Program Checklist (July 2025), information provided in Letters from Carstens, Black & Minteer LLC dated September 19, 2025 and February 6, 2026, to Mr. Temple and the Honorable Members of the City of Seal Beach’s City Council regarding the proposed Project, and a limited literature review. This review evaluates the adequacy of background data used to characterize existing conditions, the scientific validity of the analyses, and the sufficiency of the proposed mitigation measures in meeting CEQA standards for substantial evidence, analytical rigor, and informed decision making. The findings are provided to strengthen the completeness, accuracy, and scientific defensibility of the environmental analysis. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project IS/MND Comments Page 2 of 7 2. Summary of Key Findings • The BTR defines a “Project site” as the proposed area for direct impacts (i.e., permanent impacts, temporary impacts, staging and temporary work areas) and a “Study Area” which includes all portions of the Project Site, a 100-foot buffer beyond the Project site, and additional areas beyond the 100-foot buffer that support sensitive biological resources; however, the access road for and a portion of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin located within the 100-foot buffer were not surveyed or included in the Study Area for analysis and there is no explanation for this. In addition, the Project does not clearly define the “project area”, “construction boundaries” or construction ingress/egress routes. • Several of the BTR’s biological resource conclusions, particularly the special-status animals “potential to occurrence” table (Table 4-3 Special-Status Animals Evaluation for the Study Area), appear to rely heavily on the 2022–2023 field effort although the evaluation states it was based on “1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring on or in the vicinity of the Study Area and 2) any other special-status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area, for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on site”. The BTR does not provide the CNDDB results or the full results from their literature search. Table 2-1 (Summary of Biological Surveys for the Project Site) indicates that Tony Bomkamp and Erin Trung conducted the majority of the site surveys across multiple resource areas (general biological surveys, vegetation mapping, focused botanical surveys, least Bell’s vireo surveys, wandering skipper focused surveys, and assessments of jurisdictional waters), with additional participation by Brittany Gale for vegetation mapping and assessing jurisdictional waters and David Moskovitz who supported focused botanical surveys. Given the breadth of technical disciplines involved (birds, plants, invertebrates, general wildlife, and wetland/jurisdictional assessments), and the fact that the report does not provide protocol-level survey methods, results of the literature review, or clearly document each surveyor’s qualifications and applicable permits/training for each specialized survey type, it is difficult to independently evaluate the basis for certain “low/no potential” or absence conclusions. The criteria would normally include evaluating the field survey timing and detectability rationale for each target group using recognized/approved survey protocols, habitat suitability and function not just on- site but in the surrounding landscape, connectivity and movement/dispersal corridors, as well as the occurrence records (distance to known occurrences, date of occurrence, and quality of the record). • The Jurisdictional Delineation was conducted in the summer of 2022. The report states there are no wetlands as defined by the Corps, Regional Board, CDFW, or California Coastal Act. It also noted historic and on-going plowing or disking of the Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project IS/MND Comments Page 3 of 7 soil which could mask wetland indicators and noted seasonal ponding in early 2023; however, no additional surveys were conducted. In the Carstens, Black & Minteer February 2026 Letter (Re: Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project Agenda Item H, City Council Agenda of February 9, 2026, Supplement to Comments of September 14, 2025) aerial imagery from February 2024 was provided shows seasonal ponding in the Project Site. • Both the BTR and the Carstens, Black & Minteer Letter confirm least Bell’s vireo have been present adjacent to the Project site. The Letter adds nesting within 100 feet of the Project (for the last 5 breeding seasons) and foraging within the areas subject to permanent Project impacts . • The MND cites the CEC 2024 study and asserts that the lake effect hypothesis for the Project to impact migrating birds is highly unlikely given the Project’s limited size, it’s relative location to other waterbodies, and that mitigation measure AES-2 will require solar panels to be constructed of dark-colored materials and covered with an anti- reflective coating, to further prevent glare that could be confused as a water surface as it relates to interfering substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The CEC 2024 study focused on large desert facilities away from natural water but the attracting mechanism for birds are cue-based (polarized light) and describes how they adjust their flight behavior towards solar facilities and interact in ways that result in mortality which is not desert-specific. The MND provides no site-specific baseline migration flight data (e.g., altitude, direction, seasonal timing) to support their conclusions, nor do they look at impacts to bats. • The Project’s Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is very general and lacks standard provisions. o Bio-1: Construction Timing does not provide a clearly defined season or what will constitute the start and end of nesting season, who is responsible for defining and reporting this. o Bio-2: Grading Limitations does not address equipment being used, if and how it is cleaned or inspected prior to entering the site, how they will avoid grading, how the Project limits will be demarcated, and who will be monitoring and reporting for this. o Bio-3: Burrowing Owl Survey is listed as a single survey no more than 2- weeks prior to initial ground disturbance, but fails to include a final survey within 24/48/72-hours of ground disturbance, protocol for re-surveying when delays occur after the initial survey, defining buffers and stop-work authority if owls are present, and any reporting requirements. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project IS/MND Comments Page 4 of 7 o Bio 4: Southern Tarplant/Coulter’s Goldfields Preconstruction Surveys will cover the entire project area as well as a buffer of 100-feet outside the construction boundaries. The Project has not clearly defined a “Project area” nor the “construction boundaries”. The Project has not defined ingress/egress construction routes/access to the Project site. o Limited measures for nesting bird and raptor avoidance, including least Bell’s vireo and Belding’s savannah sparrow. The MND assumes Bio-1 is sufficient. o There is no Bio Measure for Biological Monitoring and Reporting. o There is no Bio Measure for Worker Environmental Awareness Training. o There is no Bio Measure for Invasive Species Management o Limited measures for Construction Best Management Practices 3. Discussion The MND relies on older, all in one-style baseline surveys and largely a few construction-phase, general condition-based mitigation measures to conclude that impacts are less than significant, but it does not supply the kind of site-specific evidence needed to support those conclusions in a wetland-adjacent setting. Key data gaps include (1) current wet-season hydrology/wetland indicator verification after the unusually wet 2022–23 and 2023–24 winters, (2) project-specific wildlife use and movement data (including micro-scale movements within the Los Cerritos Wetlands complex, migration flyovers, and bat activity), (3) a defensible analysis of glint/glare “lake effect hypothesis ” behavioral risks beyond the “small size/near water” rationale, and (4) enforceable operations-phase mitigation (monitoring, adaptive triggers, lighting/vegetation/invasive controls) that would test assumptions and respond to observed impacts. Because CEQA requires an EIR where substantial evidence supports a “fair argument” that a project may cause significant effects, the baseline data provided has gaps that leave the MND’s less than significant findings insufficiently supported. 1. The Project seems to point to the disturbed landscape as permanently disturbed by default, but discredits the close proximity to adjacent and functional wetlands, its historic past as a coastal wetland, and how in Southern California wetland expression is often episodic, especially in depressional areas and transitional zones where hydrology and/or hydric soils can respond in wet years and with the right propagules can alter the landscape fairly rapidly. The MND acknowledges that 2022 rainfall was below average but treated the season and survey as adequate for assessing site conditions. It also documented ponding in the Project site in March 2023 with above average rainfall, conditions that could have revealed different results than in the summer of 2022; however, no subsequent surveys were conducted, and the report was not updated to reflect whether additional wetland indicators were present. In 2024, seasonal ponding was again present representing a multi-year pattern which should have warranted further investigation and re-surveying/mapping of the site. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project IS/MND Comments Page 5 of 7 2. The MND provides limited literature to support the evaluation for potential to occur and appears to discount the presence of least Bell’s vireo territories and other known listed species that are present or immediately adjacent to the Project. The MND does not provide any supporting evidence that the site is not used by these species and offers general mitigation measures to assume any potential impact will be brought to below significance. The details to support a proper evaluation and determination do not include evaluating species detectability and survey adequacy regarding timing and using recognized/approved survey protocols during the appropriate season, species life stage, habitat suitability not just on-site but in the surrounding landscape, connectivity and movement/dispersal corridors, as well as the occurrence records (distance to known occurrences, date of occurrence, and quality of the record). The s urveys that were conducted are outdated and did not provide adequate details to make informed decisions as to timing, site fidelity, and use of the site and surrounding habitats that could be impacted (directly or indirectly) by the project which could include dust, noise, traffic, lighting, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, trash, and predatory-prey interactions. 3. Project details. The study area definition and survey coverage remain unclear. While the BTR defines a “Project site” and a “Study Area” that includes a 100-foot buffer beyond the Project site, it also states that the access road and a portion of the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin within that buffer were not surveyed and were not included in the Study Area analysis, without an explanation. This matters because any un-surveyed areas within the stated buffer could provide additional resources (protected species or their habitats) which need to be disclosed and analyzed, including their function (i.e., movement corridors, nesting/foraging habitat) and any impact the proposed project which may include dust, noise, traffic, lighting, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, trash, and predatory-prey interactions. In addition, the Project does not clearly define “project area,” “construction boundaries,” or construction ingress/egress routes, which limits the ability to verify what habitats and edge zones could be disturbed and where avoidance buffers would need to be applied. 4. MMP. The measures provided are very general and do not provide the protections needed to mitigate impacts to protected species or their habitats. The bird measures are not sufficient to support a “less than significant” conclusion because they rely largely on a broad nesting- season timing restriction and general vegetation clearing/erosion control provisions, without the enforceable implementation details needed to prevent take or indirect effects in a sensitive environmental setting. A seasonal restriction measures for nesting bird is a concern because project schedules frequently shift and because nesting can occur outside generalized date ranges. Without a defined qualified biologist role, pre-activity surveys, buffer requirements, monitoring requirements, educational requirements, stop-work authority, and reporting, this measure is not reliable to ensure full avoidance of active nests or sensitive species use immediately adjacent to the Project. At a minimum, the MMP should require species-appropriate nesting bird and raptor surveys conducted within a defined Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project IS/MND Comments Page 6 of 7 number of days before ground disturbance and vegetation clearing (with re-survey triggers after delays), establish clear avoidance buffers with biologist authority to expand buffers based on site conditions, include biological monitoring during initial clearing and other high- disturbance activities, and require written compliance documentation and post-activity reporting. Similarly, the MMP’s omits a worker education training and invasive species prevention and management measures. Both should be standard based on construction disturbances and proximity to other sensitive resources that can be impacted. At a minimum, the MMP should include an Invasive Species Prevention and Rapid Response measure that requires equipment cleaning/inspection prior to site entry and between work areas, certified weed-free erosion control and clean fill materials, baseline mapping and follow-up monitoring of invasive species in and around the construction footprint and surrounding buffer, performance standards (e.g., invasive cover thresholds and “no net expansion” into other habitats), and a fully-funded, enforceable control and reporting program through an establishment period. 5. PV Impacts. The MND does not demonstrate that smaller arrays do not cause attractions, collisions, disorientation, or behavioral changes that could disrupt migration or increase injury, mortality, or metabolic costs not only to birds but to bats. In a wetlands complex with adjacent water bodies, there is an increased abundance of birds and likely an increased potential for these interactions as opposed to desert facilities, despite the relatively “limited size” as the MND suggests. The MND does not provide any data to address the Project’s impacts to localized movements and any interference with stopover or foraging behaviors, nor does it offer any mitigation for these. Fleming 2025 describes PV panels as potentially functioning as “mega-traps” and how waterbirds can reorient and descend towards perceived water cues, noting both direct and indirect mortality pathways (i.e., collision, entrapment/stranding, predation risk). Ba ts can also be attracted to water cues, and the same sensory traps can occur. Fleming 2025 explicitly treats bats as a receptor group for solar facility impacts and this is not addressed in the MND. In wetland/estuary settings, bats often commute along water edges and exploit insect concentrations; PV facilities can alter insect distributions (attraction/aggregation) and create new edge structures that affect bat activity. The MND’s “highly unlikely” conclusion is framed only for migrating birds and does not analyze bat flight activity, lighting effects, or insect-mediated attraction pathways. The CEC 2024 report also discusses how anti-reflective coatings (ARCs) can both increase panel energy efficiency and reduce the degree to which they polarize light by up to 12 percent; however, there is no evidence that this reduction in polarization translates into a reduction in bird and bat attraction, collision, or mortality. ARC only addresses a single element (polarization) and there are no established thresholds on how birds and wildlife may respond. The MND does not provide baseline data that includes seasonal birds or bat species, their flight behaviors, or the extent of movement corridors and migration across the Project site to properly identify, analyze, and mitigate for all potential impacts. Hellman Solar PV Electrical System Project IS/MND Comments Page 7 of 7 5. Conclusions Based on the materials reviewed, this memorandum identifies key gaps in baseline data, study area coverage, and mitigation specifically designed to support the MND’s less than significant conclusions for biological resources. CEQA findings must be supported by substantial evidence, and mitigation must be enforceable and capable of reducing impacts to below significance; however, the MND does not provide sufficient information to identify, analyze, and mitigate for all potential impacts. These omissions introduce uncertainty regarding the completeness of the baseline and the protection and enforceability of any avoidance and minimization measures for the Project. As a result, additional analysis and more specific measures are warranted before relying on this MND to conclude the biological impacts would be less than significant.