You are on page 1of 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California CHRISTINA BULL ARNDT Supervising Deputy Attorney General MITCHELL E. RISHE Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 193503 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 897-6224 Fax: (213) 897-2801 E-mail: Mitchell.Rishe@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Real Party-in-Interest, California Department of Parks and Recreation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

FRIENDS OF OCEANO DUNES, INC., a California not-for-profit corporation,

Case No. CV 120013

v.

REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST Plaintiff and Petitioner, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONS OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Date: Time: Dept: Judge: January 24, 2012 9:00 a.m. 9 Hon. Charles S. Crandall

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, a local air pollution control district, et al., Defendant and Respondent. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, a department of the State of California, et al., Real Party-in-Interest.

Trial Date: January 24, 2013 Action Filed: January 4, 2012

Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Facts and Standard of Review ................................................................................... 4 Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 5 I. The District has not identified a problem that the proposed rule or regulation will alleviate ......................................................................................... 5 A. The Phase 2 study does not show a problem ........................................... 6 1. The Phase 2 study found no correlation between riding activity and PM10 concentrations ................................................... 7 2. The Phase 2 study lacked a reliable control site monitor ................ 8 3. The California Geological Survey refuted the Phase 2 study ......... 9 B. The District cannot explain how off-highway vehicle riding contributes to PM10 exceedences ............................................................. 10 1. There is no evidence of a dune Crust ........................................ 11 2. Vegetation has increased at Oceano Dunes .................................. 12 C. The District has not determined that the Rule will alleviate PM10 .......... 14 II. The District lacks authority to require a permit for a coastal dune vehicular activity area ........................................................................................................... 14 A. Oceano Dunes is not an article, machine, equipment or other contrivance .............................................................................................. 15 B. A permit system interferes with the Legislatures mandate that Parks operate State Vehicular Recreation Areas ....................................... 15 III. Rule 1001 lacks clear standards ............................................................................ 16 A. Rule 1001 unlawfully delegates the Boards legislative authority to the Districts Air Pollution Control Officer. ............................................. 17 B. The Rule is susceptible to outcome-driven monitoring. ........................... 20 IV. The District failed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Rule ......................... 21 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 24

i Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CASES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

Agnew v. City of Culver City (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 144............................................................................................... 18, 19 American Coatings Assn., Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446 ......................................................................................................... 9, 22 Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139 ........................................................................................................... 16 Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692................................................................................................. 5, 13 Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270 ................................................................................................. 16 Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency supra, 189 Cal.App.4th ........................................................................................................... 10 Western States Petroleum Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1012 ........................................................................................... 10, 22 STATUTES 40 C.F.R. 50.1(e) (1989). ............................................................................................................. 5 Cal. Code Regs. Title 14 4609 ...................................................................................................................................... 16 4753 ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Health & Safety Code 40001 ............................................................................................................................. passim 40703 .......................................................................................................................... 3, 21, 24 40727 .................................................................................................................................... 16 40910 .................................................................................................................................... 22 40922 .................................................................................................................... 3, 21, 22, 24 42300 ................................................................................................................................ 3, 15 42400 .......................................................................................................................... 3, 18, 21 Pub. Resources Code, 5090.02................................................................................................... 15 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Cal. Const., Article XI, 7............................................................................................................ 16
ii Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OTHER AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page

76 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 11 ............................................................................................................ 15 Cal. Jur. 3d, Municipalities 352 ................................................................................................. 18 Watson and Smith, Soil Survey of the Santa Maria Area, California (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 1919) .................................................................................................................... 13

iii
Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INTRODUCTION The California Legislature created the California Department of Parks and Recreations (Parks) Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation in 1971 out of the critical need to better manage the growing demand for off-highway recreation, while at the same time fostering respect for private property rights and protecting Californias natural and cultural resources. Today the Division operates eight State Vehicular Recreation Areas (SVRAs). Oceano Dunes SVRA (Oceano Dunes), established in 1982, is the most popular camping destination in all of State Parks, welcoming more than 1.5 million visitors annually. Oceano Dunes covers approximately 3,600 acres near Pismo Beach, California. Offhighway vehicle riding is permitted on approximately 1,500 of the dunes acres, except during March through October, when an additional approximately 250 acres are closed to vehicles to protect nesting birds. The remaining approximately 2,100 acres are closed to vehicles year-round and managed as native habitat. Although Parks established Oceano Dunes in 1982, the dunes have been a favorite camping and recreation site for families for over 100 years. Vehicle riding on the beach dates back to at least 1906. In the 1950s, with advancements in driving technology, vehicles began traversing inland onto the dunes. Today, Oceano Dunes is the only place in the State where people can still legally drive on the beach. A residential area known as the Nipomo Mesa lies directly downwind from Oceano Dunes. Based on air monitoring on the Nipomo Mesa that documented exceedences of Californias PM10 standard1, in March 2007 Respondent San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (District) published the Nipomo Mesa Particulate Study (the Phase 1 study). The Phase 1 study identified particulate matter from Oceano Dunes during high wind events as the likely cause of PM10 exceedences. The District then undertook further study to determine if off-highway vehicle activity plays a role in producing the high concentrations of PM10 at Nipomo Mesa. At first, Parks worked
1

A PM10 standard is a level of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter.


1 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

cooperatively with the District to design and implement the South County Phase 2 Particulate Matter Study (the Phase 2 study). However, in April 2008, the District terminated its cooperation with Parks and excluded Parks from the study because Parks objected to various aspects of the study. (Motion to Correct and Augment the Administrative Record, Exh. 1.) Because the California Geological Survey was involved in the study at Parks request, the District also excluded the Geological Survey from the study when it terminated its cooperation with Parks. (Ibid.) In March 2010, the District published the results of the Phase 2 study. The Phase 2 study concluded that greater amounts of PM10 are generated when wind blows over areas where offhighway vehicle riding occurs when compared to areas that are closed to riding. The premise of the study is that off-highway vehicle activity breaks a crust on the sand dune surface, which increases the ability of winds to entrain sand particles from the dunes and carry them to the [Nipomo] Mesa (AR 2:217.) Parks, in coordination with the Geological Survey, submitted lengthy comments critical of the Phase 2 study. The District disregarded Parks and the Geological Survey comments and, relying on the findings of the Phase 2 study, released draft Rule 1001. Although the Rule on its face is applicable to any coastal dune vehicle activity area over 100 acres, only Oceano Dunes meets this description. The stated purpose of Rule 1001 is to reduce PM10 emissions to natural background levels. However, because the Phase 2 study was unable to quantify what the natural background levels are, the Rule requires Parks to implement a Temporary Baseline Monitoring Program (Monitoring Program) to determine these levels. The Rule also requires Parks to develop and implement a Particulate Matter Reduction Plan (PM Reduction Plan). Both the Monitoring Program and the PM Reduction Plan are subject to the approval of the Districts Air Pollution Control Officer (Control Officer). The Rule sets forth a strict compliance schedule to obtain these approvals that is already under way. Following implementation of the PM Reduction Plan, Parks must ensure that PM10 concentrations downwind of the dunes are no more than 20% above that at a control site, or it is
2 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

subject to fine under Health and Safety Code section 42400. The Rule also requires Parks to obtain a Permit to Operate from the District. Parks and the Geological Survey submitted comments objecting to the draft Rule. Although the District made modest changes to the Rule at Parks request, the District disregarded most of Parks objections and adopted the Rule at its November 16, 2011 meeting. Petitioner Friends of Oceano Dunes petition followed. Health and Safety Code section 40001, subdivision (c), requires that, before adopting the Rule, the District was required to determine that there is a problem that the proposed rule or regulation will alleviate. Health and Safety Code sections 40703 and 40922 further require the District to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Rule. Taken together, the Health and Safety Code required the District to demonstrate both that there is a problem and that there are available solutions to cost-effectively alleviate the problem before it adopted the Rule. The District did neither. Because the Phase 2 study was flawed and inconclusive, the data does not support the Phase 2 studys findings. For instance, the study showed no correlation between riding activity and PM10 levels. Moreover, the study lacked a proper control site monitor. In fact, the only control site monitor placed in or downwind of a non-riding open sand dune similar to Oceano Dunes never provided reliable data, because it became buried in sand a mere two days after installation (this alone demonstrates that there is no crust that traps sand particles). Instead, the Rule unlawfully imposes that obligation on Parks by requiring it to prepare the Monitoring Program in order to get an idea of what the baseline levels [a]re (AR 8:1657, lines 23-24.) As a result, the District has not shown that there is a problem (i.e., that elevated PM10 concentrations downwind of the dunes are the result of off-highway vehicle riding and not a naturally-occurring phenomena). The Rule also exceeds the Districts authority by requiring Parks to obtain a Permit to Operate, and by unlawfully delegating the District Boards legislative authority to the Control Officer. Health and Safety Code section 42300 only authorizes air pollution control districts to require a permit to operate an article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance But Oceano
3 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dunes is neither an article, machine, equipment, nor contrivance. As such, the District lacks authority to require permit. The permit requirement also conflicts with the California Legislatures mandate that Parks operate and manage State Vehicular Recreation Areas, since it gives the District the ability to deny the permit and thus close the dunes to off-highway vehicle activity. In addition, because the Rule does not set forth any standard for approval of the Monitoring Program and PM Reduction Plan, it constitutes an unlawful delegation of the District Boards legislative authority. For instance, delegating authority to the Control Officers unfettered discretion will allow him to approve or reject monitoring locations in order to nudge the outcomes to support the Districts notions of what the data should show (i.e., that PM10 concentrations are greater on the dunes than in the control site approved by the Control Officer). And if Parks and the District cannot agree on a Monitoring Program, the District could fine Parks. Finally, the District failed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the Rule, as the Health and Safety Code requires. Instead, it shifted this burden to Parks. But nothing in the Health and Safety Code authorizes the District to abdicate its responsibility and require the regulated entity to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a regulation after it is already adopted. In sum, the District failed to determine whether there is a problem that the Rule will alleviate, the available methods of alleviating the problem, or the cost effectiveness of alleviating the problem, and instead improperly and unlawfully shifted that burden to Parks. The District also exceeded its authority by imposing a permit requirement on the dunes and by delegating its legislative authority to the Control Officer. Because the District adopted Rule 1001 without substantial justification, and because the Rule exceeds the Districts authority, the Court should grant the petition and set aside Rule 1001. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Statement of Facts and Standard of Review are thoroughly set forth in Friends Opening Brief, which Parks will not repeat here.

4 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I.

ARGUMENT THE DISTRICT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A PROBLEM THAT THE PROPOSED RULE OR REGULATION WILL ALLEVIATE Health and Safety Code section 40001, subdivision (c), provides that: Prior to adopting any rule or regulation to reduce criteria pollutants, a district shall determine that there is a problem that the proposed rule or regulation will alleviate and that the rule or regulation will promote the attainment or maintenance of state or federal ambient air quality standards. California law requires that air pollution control districts plan for and attain federal and state ambient air quality standards. (Health & Saf. Code, 40001, subd. (a) [the districts shall adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction].) Nothing authorizes an air pollution control district to implement regulations to reduce air pollution below naturally-occurring (i.e., ambient) levels. (Ibid.) Ambient air is defined as that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has access. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 713, fn. 3, citing 40 C.F.R. 50.1(e) (1989).) In other words, ambient levels are different than emission levels in that the latter measures the extent to which project emissions contribute to ambient, or already existing, air pollution. (Id. at p. 713, fn. 3.) Accordingly, to the extent that PM10 emissions on the dunes are naturally occurring and not the result of human activity, the District lacks authority to regulate. For its part, the District recognizes that the purpose of the Rule is not to reduce naturallyoccurring particulate matter, but only to reduce emissions to natural background levels. (AR 8:1654, lines 9-10 [The rule itself is designed to reduce violations of the Health Standards to natural background levels]; AR 8:1657, line 3 [the goal of the rule is to reduce the SVRA contribution to a natural background level]; AR 8:1669, lines 13-15 [the Rule is going to address the incremental difference only].) But the District has not identified the incremental contribution of off-highway vehicle riding to naturally-existing PM10 concentrations. Put another way, the District does not know what the naturally-occurring PM10 levels on the dunes are; that is saved for implementation of
5 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Rule. (AR 8:1657, lines 23-24 [under the Rule, Parks must develop a monitoring plan to get an idea of what the baseline levels [a]re].) For its part, Parks acknowledges that Oceano Dunes is a source of PM10 in San Luis Obispo County. (AR 8:1726, lines 18-21; AR 8:1733, line 12.) And even without the Rule, Parks has taken action to minimize sand drift within the dunes. (See AR 8:1726-1735.) But the mere existence of PM10 does not, in itself, mean that there is a problem within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 40001 that the District can regulate. Rather, Parks must determine that off-highway vehicle use causes PM10 downwind at Nipomo Mesa. It has not. A. The Phase 2 Study Does Not Show a Problem

The Phase 2 study used numerous downwind and control sites to monitor PM10 concentrations. (AR 2:224). The primary downwind sites are referred to as Mesa2 and CDF. (AR 2:224, 266.) The primary control site is referred to as Oso. (AR 2:270-276). Based on data that shows PM10 concentrations higher downwind of the dunes than at the Oso control site2, the Phase 2 study concluded that off-highway vehicle activity caused the elevated PM10 concentrations. (See AR 2:270-272.) The Phase 2 study posits two theories why off-highway vehicle riding on the dunes increases downwind PM10 concentrations above naturally-occurring levels: (1) it destabilizes the dunes by breaking a crust on the dune surface; and (2) it decreases vegetation. As explained in the Phase 2 study: Offroad vehicle activity on the dunes is known to cause de-vegetation, destabilization of dune structure and destruction of the natural crust on the dune surface. All of these act to increase the ability of winds to entrain sand particles from the dunes and carry them to the Mesa, representing an indirect emissions impact from the vehicles. The data strongly suggests this is the primary cause of the high PM levels measured on the Nipomo Mesa during episode days. (AR 2:217.) The Phase 2 study also utilized limited data from a control site referred to as the Dune Center. However, data was collected at the Dune Center site for a total of only thirteen days in March 2009. (AR 2:252.) In addition, although the Phase 2 study claims that the Dune Center represents a control site a similar distance to the ocean as the Mesa2 site, an aerial map of the Dune Center monitoring station shows that it is downwind of the highly vegetated Oso dune site, and thus not comparable to the open sand dunes of Oceano Dunes. (AR 2:225.)
6 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

However, the Phase 2 study was flawed, inconclusive, and does not support these findings. Accordingly, the District has not shown that there is a problem that the proposed rule or regulation will alleviate. (Health & Saf. Code, 40001, subd. (a).) 1. The Phase 2 Study Found No Correlation between Riding Activity and PM10 Concentrations

Significantly, the Phase 2 study found no correlation between riding activity and PM10 concentrations. (AR 2:279 [the relationship between daily PM10 levels at Mesa2 and daily number of vehicles entering the SVRA shows no statistical correlation].) The data confirms that wind speed and direction are the predominant factors affecting PM10 levels. (AR 2:264.) In other words, PM10 levels generally increase as wind increases. So, in order to factor out the effect of wind on PM10 levels, the Phase 2 study averaged the 50 highest and 50 lowest days of activity at the dunes. Averaging of the data may allow the strong correlation with winds to get averaged out and possibly show a relationship between the number of vehicles entering the SVRA and PM10 concentration downwind. (AR 2:280.) Still this averaging produced no statistical difference between the lowest and highest activity days at CDF. (AR 2:281.) Although the study did find that averaging produced a statistically significant difference at Mesa2, because CDF is closer to the dunes than Mesa2 (which produced no statistical difference), the District acknowledged the results were a bit contradictory. (Ibid.) The District explains the lack of correlation due to the fact that dune riding increas[es] the ability of winds to entrain sand particles from the dunes and carry them to the Mesa. (AR 2:281.) In other words, off-highway vehicle activity alters the dune by breaking up the dune crust, which allows sand particles to be carried to Nipomo Mesa during high-wind events. (AR 4:940.) But this explanation is wholly unsatisfactory. Under the Districts theory, the ability of winds to entrain sand particles should increase as riding increases, by breaking more and more of the dune crust throughout the riding area. As a result, there should be a statistically significant correlation between riding and PM10 concentrations once the effects of wind are averaged out. But there is none. (AR 2:281; see also AR 3:462 [Even this indirect effect would be expected to bear proportionality to Oceano Dunes SVRA visitation, but none is
7 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

found.]; AR 3:461 [While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, the converse is true: lack of correlation strongly suggests lack of causation.].) The Phase 2 studys failure to show any correlation between riding activity and PM10 concentrations is fatal to the Rule, because the District has not demonstrated a problem. 2. The Phase 2 Study Lacked a Reliable Control Site Monitor

The Phase 2 study concludes that [t]he open sand sheets subject to [off-highway vehicle] activity on the SVRA emit significantly greater amounts of particulates than the undisturbed sand sheets at the study control sites under the same wind conditions. (AR 2:217.) This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the Oso control site experiences significantly less downwind PM10 than either site downwind from the SVRA. (AR 2: 271.) However, the significance of these results depends on the degree to which Oso is a reliable control site. Oso is not a reliable control site. The Oso control site is a non-riding sand dune south of Oceano Dunes. (AR 2:224.) However, an aerial map of the site clearly shows that it is highly vegetated, and thus not at all similar to the open sand dunes of Oceano Dunes.3 (AR 2:225; see also AR 3:469-471 [the Oso station and the CDF station are not comparative environments from which to collect wind speed data used to correlate sand movement in the dunes]; see also AR 2:248, 266.) The Phase 2 study did not use data from another control site, the Ten Commandments site (so named because it is where the Charlton Heston movie of the same name was filmed (AR 2:293, 380.) Aerial maps of the Ten Commandments site show that it is the one control site most analogous to the open sand dunes of Oceano Dunes. (AR 2:336; see also AR 3:464 [the Ten Commandments site is an undisturbed natural dune site most analogous to the Oceano Dunes SVRA open sand sheet dune.].) However, the Ten Commandments monitor never provided any reliable data because, according to the District, its monitor did not meet the required QA [quality assurance] criteria. (AR 2:293.) In fact, the Ten Commandments monitor failed quality assurance criteria because The Phase 2 study concedes that vegetated dune areas do not emit wind blown particles. (AR 2:310.)
8 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)
3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the entire sampler [was] buried in sand a mere two days after the District installed it. (AR 1:166 (emphasis added).) The lack of a control site monitor similar to the Oceano Dunes riding area puts into question the reliability of the Phase 2 study results. More importantly, however, is that the fact that the Ten Commandments monitor, which is not open to riding, was buried only two days after installation, puts into doubt the basic conclusion of the Phase 2 study, which is that riding increas[es] the ability of winds to entrain sand particles from the dunes and carry them to the Mesa. (AR 2:281.) In fact, disturbed sand interrupts the natural flow of wind over the dune, thereby reducing wind speed and decreasing airborne particulate matter. As explained by the Geological Survey: Dune formation is a display of efficiency. The windward side of a dune is gently sloped and smooth. This provides a relatively unobstructed path for grains to move by saltation.[4] When this surface plane is disrupted, such as by a foot print or a tire track, the wind flow over the sand surface is disrupted, becoming more turbulent and decreasing in velocity. (Citation.) As a result, sand flux and saltation decrease. (AR 3:471.) The inability of the Phase 2 study to use an appropriate control site monitor further undermines its conclusions. 3. The California Geological Survey Refuted the Phase 2 Study

The California Geological Survey is regarded as the primary source of geological and seismological products and services for decision making by Californias government agencies, its businesses and the public. (See Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Exh. 1 [Geological Survey Vision Statement]. The Geological Survey submitted lengthy comments challenging the findings of the Phase 2 study. Although the standard of a writ of mandate is to defer to the agencys findings unless arbitrary, capricious, or [without] reasonable or rational basis (American Coatings Assn., Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446, 460, citation omitted), [a] clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. (State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 795.) Saltation is a process whereby sand grains are bounced along the dune surface by the wind. (AR: 3:468; see also AR 2:226, Figure 2.4.)
9 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)
4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Moreover, the deference afforded an administrative agency is due to its presumed expertise in the arena within which it legislates. (Sonoma County Water Coalition v. Sonoma County Water Agency, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at 62; see also Western States Petroleum Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1018 (This limited judicial review is further constrained by the recognition that in technical matters requiring the assistance of experts and the study of marshaled scientific data , courts will permit administrative agencies to work out their problems with as little judicial interference as possible. [Citation.]].) Here, however, the Geological Survey, not the District, is the states geology expert. (RJN, Exh. 1.) The Geological Survey testified at the hearing on Rule 1001 that the Phase 2 study does not establish off-highway vehicle activity as the cause of PM10 downwind of the dunes. (AR 8:1726, lines 2-4 [in terms of the point about saltation being generated more readily because of [off-highway vehicle] activity, that has not been demonstrated by the Phase 2.].) The ostensible basis for the Rule is the Phase 2 study the District prepared, for which it has no particular expertise. In contrast, the Geological Survey the primary source of geological and seismological products and services for decision making by Californias government agencies offered a scathing critique of the studys findings. (AR 3:467-485.) In light of the Phase 2 studys questionable conclusions, no particular deference to the findings and conclusions of the District is warranted. Rather, the Court should heed, if not defer to, the designated State expert in geological services, which found the Phase 2 study flawed and inconclusive. B. The District Cannot Explain How Off-Highway Vehicle Riding Contributes to PM10 Exceedences

As set forth above, the Phase 2 study posits that off-highway vehicle riding increases PM10 concentrations at Nipomo Mesa beyond naturally-occurring levels two ways: it breaks the dune crust and it decreases vegetation. (AR 2:217; see also AR 2:311 [study measurements indicate the substantially lower PM emissions from the undisturbed control area dunes result from two important features not found in the SVRA: the presence of an ephemeral crust on the sand surface and a higher density of vegetation]; 2:313 [it appears the most significant impact of [off10 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

highway vehicle] activity in contributing to high downwind PM levels on the Nipomo Mesa results from denuding of vegetation and prevention of natural crust formation on the sand surface].) However, nothing supports either of the Districts conclusions. 1. There Is No Evidence of a Dune Crust

The Districts Phase 2 study concluded that off-highway vehicle riding breaks a crust on the dune surface. (See, e.g., AR 2:217 [Offroad vehicle activity on the dunes is known to cause destruction of the natural crust on the dune surface]; 2:289 [The soil crust was observed throughout the open sand sheets upwind from the Oso site, but was not present in the SVRA.]; 2:310 [the open sand sheet west of the Oso site had a thin crust on the sand surface. This crust was not observed in the SVRA.].) However, by the time District staff proposed Rule 1001 to its Board for approval, it appeared to have already retreated from this theory. (See, e.g., AR 4:944 [The proposed rule is not based on speculation nor on the presence or absence of a crust on the dunes.]; 8:1750, lines 5-6 [the presence or absence of a crust is one possible explanation of it. We didnt never [sic] claim that that was the sole reason for that.].) In any event, the District lacks any scientific evidence of a dune crust. As observed during testimony on the Rule: Heres what two of your own experts have to say. And I quote, while I have seen the crust out on the dunes firsthand, I do not consider myself an expert on itself [sic] formation. This question would best be answered by a sand dune morphologist with local expertise, end quote. That was Tom Murphy, a contributor to the study and also, interestingly, one of the peer reviewers. Tom [Cahill], principle [sic] author of the study, had this to say, quote, I included a picture in my report. But beyond that, little is known. It appears to form in the presence of moisture, but when crushed, it appears to be just sand. We did not discover it in time to make [sic] depth chemical profile, which would have given info on the presence of biological components and sea salt. We will do this on our own time sometime, Im sure. We want the question answered too, end quote. (AR 8:1718, lines 9-19.) The crust theory has its genesis in observations of the Owens dry lakebed. (AR 2:28990.) However, the Geological Survey completely debunks this theory. As the Geological Survey explained:
11 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In the most basic of ways, the coastal dunes of southern San Luis Obispo County differ from the Owens Lake playa because they are dunes, not a dry lake, and because they are on the coast, not the high desert. And there is no stabilizing crust in the dunes south of the SVRA that is comparable to the salt flats of the Owens Lake playa. There is no stabilizing crust at all. (AR 3:468; see also AR 3:459 [Unlike Owens Lake, which was formed by an enclosed inland, dry lakebed comprised of fine clay and evaporite, the source of the sand along the coast of southern San Luis Obispo County is constantly renewed from offshore sources. Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey indicate 115,000 cubic yards of sand are deposited and blown inland each year along the 55-mile coastline from Pismo Beach to Point Arguello.].) As explained above, undisturbed sand actually increases wind-borne particulate matter, because it can flow undisturbed over the dune. (AR 3:471.) Without reliance on the theory of a dune crust, there is nothing to support the Districts conclusion that off-highway vehicle activity increase[s] the ability of winds to entrain sand particles from the dunes (AR 2:217), and the Phase 2 study falls apart. 2. Vegetation Has Increased at Oceano Dunes

The Districts second theory is that there is less vegetation on the dunes than there otherwise would have been absent off-highway vehicle riding. Because vegetated dune areas do not emit wind blown particles (AR 2:310), a loss of vegetation increases downwind PM10 concentrations. However, since the dunes came under Parks management in the early 1980s (AR 5:1004), vegetation on the dunes has actually increased. (AR 5:1005, 1024.) In fact, the very premise that off-highway vehicle riding decreases vegetation is contrary to the dunes history. Aerial maps of the dunes in 1939 (prior to dune riding) and 1979 (prior to Parks management) shows little if any change in vegetation. (See AR 2:313, 3:521.) Because technology did not allow vehicles to traverse inland until approximately the 1950s, prior to that time, riding was limited to the hard-pack sand near the shore. (AR 5:1004.) Accordingly, the amount of open sand dune present in the 1930s is a reasonable representation of the dunes previous to the influence of [off-highway vehicle] activity.5 (Ibid.) Since the early 1980s, Although the Oceano Dunes did become vegetated in the early 1900s due to the introduction of non-native species, prior to that time Oceano Dunes was an open sand dune (continued)
12 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)
5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

when the dunes came under Parks management, the dunes have, in some areas, become heavily vegetated. (Ibid.) For its part, the District recognizes that Parks has performed extensive vegetation of the dunes. (AR 2:312 [acknowledging [t]he great success of the re-vegetation efforts undertaken by State Parks].) The District points to the boundary of the riding area as evidence that riding de-vegetates the dunes. (See AR 2:313-14 [the fence line limiting [off-highway vehicle] activity is also the border between vegetated and non-vegetated areas of the dunes].) The District then concludes that revegetation efforts in unfenced areas have failed. (AR 2:312.) However, that conclusion alone does not suggest that the District may regulate the dunes. The District may only regulate to the extent that the loss of vegetation contribute[s] to ambient, or already existing, air pollution. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 713, fn. 3.) As the Districts statement suggests, off-highway vehicle riding may have interfered with Parks artificial revegetation efforts; but the District has not shown that it interferes with naturallyoccurring vegetation. Between 1939 (prior to dune riding) and 2010, there has been a net increase in vegetation of approximately 650 acres. (AR 5:1005, 1024.) Even in the riding area, vegetation has increased during this same time period by nearly 200 acres. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the Phase 2 study does not demonstrate that off-highway vehicle riding has resulted in a decrease in vegetation below that which it would be but for off-highway vehicle riding. /// /// /// ///

(continued) generally devoid of vegetation. (See AR 3:516-520; AR 5:1004 [in the early 1900s fastgrowing European beach grasses and ice plant were planted in the foredunes where Oceano Dunes SVRA is presently]; see also Watson and Smith, Soil Survey of the Santa Maria Area, California (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 1919) p. 46 [The sand dunes are are almost devoid of vegetation and essentially nonagricultural.].)
13 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

C.

The District Has Not Determined that the Rule Will Alleviate PM10

Health & Safety Code section 40001, subdivision (c), requires not only that the District determine that there is a problem, but that the Rule will alleviate it. Here, because the Rule does not propose or require any specific mitigation control measures, the District does not and cannot show that the Rule will alleviate downwind PM10 at Nipomo Mesa. Instead, it shifts that responsibility to Parks. (AR 8:1663, lines 21-22 [the rule itself doesnt require any specific control technologies. Its up to the operator to determine which management practices can meet the requirements [of the Rule]].) As explained in more detail below, the District contends that the Rule could reduce PM10 emission exceedences by about 75% compared to existing conditions. (AR: 4:899.) However, the District does not offer any evidence to support its conclusion that the Rule will achieve this reduction. (See AR 4:312 [there is no agreement as to the degree to which Oceano Dunes SVRA activity contributes to elevated PM10 on the Mesa or how PM10 can be controlled].) Indeed, it cannot, because the Phase 2 study is unable to quantify the contribution of off-highway vehicle riding to PM10 exceedences, because it did not, with any scientific certainty, demonstrate that there is a problem. Based on the foregoing, the District has failed to show there is a problem or that there are any available control measures that will alleviate the problem. Therefore, Rule 1001 is invalid under Health and Safety Code section 40001. II. THE DISTRICT LACKS AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR A COASTAL DUNE VEHICULAR ACTIVITY AREA Rule 1001 requires Parks to obtain a Permit to Operate from the District. (AR 4:889 [Rule 1001, C.5].) However, the Health and Safety Code does not authorize the District to enact a permit system for a coastal dune vehicular activity area. /// /// /// ///
14 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A.

Oceano Dunes Is Not an Article, Machine, Equipment or Other Contrivance

The authority for a permit system is found in Health and Safety Code section 42300, which authorizes air pollution control districts to require permits only for certain sources of air pollution: Every district board may establish, by regulation, a permit system that requires, except as otherwise provided in Section 42310, that before any person builds, erects, alters, replaces, operates, or uses any article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, the person obtain a permit to do so from the air pollution control officer of the district. (Emphasis added.) Here, the dunes are neither an article, machine, equipment, or other contrivance. The District contends that the dunes are a contrivance. (AR 5:988 [State Parks is altering and operating a contrivance which may cause the issuance of air contaminants].) However, a contrivance is generally thought of as a mechanical device. (76 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 11, citing Websters New Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1966) pp. 123, 496; see also Blacks Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990), p. 329, col. 1 [An instrument or article designed to accomplish a specific objective and made by use of measure of ingenuity.].) As Oceano Dunes functions neither as a mechanical device nor an instrument, it is not a contrivance. B. A Permit System Interferes with the Legislatures Mandate that Parks Operate State Vehicular Recreation Areas

The Legislature created State Parks Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation out of recognition of the ever-increasing popularity of off-highway motor vehicles and the need to effectively manage areas and facilities for the use of off-highway vehicles while protecting the environment, wildlife habitats, native wildlife, and native flora. (See Pub. Resources Code, 5090.02.) Without legal places to ride, riders tend to move to unregulated areas. By imposing a permit system on Parks operation of Oceano Dunes, the Rule effectively gives the District the power to close a State Vehicular Recreation Area, pre-empting the mandate

15 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of the Legislature.6 This exceeds the Districts authority. (Cal. Const., art. XI, 7 [A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.]; see also Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150 [Local legislation in conflict with general law is void.].) Sequoia Park Associates v. County of Sonoma (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1270 held that local legislation is in conflict with general law when the subject matter has been partially covered by general law and the subject is of such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. (Id. at p. 1278, citations and internal quotations omitted.) Here, the Legislature specifically required Parks to operate State Vehicular Recreation Areas. Oceano Dunes is a recognized SVRA. (See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, 4753; see also Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, 4609.) A permit system, which allows a local air pollution control district the ability to close a State Vehicular Recreation Area, interferes with this legislative mandate. Because the District lacks authority to require a Permit to Operate a coastal dune vehicular activity area, Rule 1001 is invalid. III. RULE 1001 LACKS CLEAR STANDARDS The Health and Safety Code required the District to make findings of clarity before adopting Rule 1001. (Health & Saf. Code, 40727, subd. (a) [Before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, the district board shall make findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, nonduplication, and reference].) Clarity means that the regulation is written or displayed so that its meaning can be easily understood by the persons directly affected by it. (Health & Saf. Code, 40727, subd. (b)(3).) The District avers that Rule 1001 satisfies

During the hearing on Rule 1001, Phil Jenkins, Chief of Parks Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation, testified before the District as follows: And thats the problem, is the requirement to get an operating permit . Our fear is that despite our best efforts [t]he rule sets the situation where if we together, after agreeing on a plan of action [a]nd then if it fails, we get fined. (AR 8:1736, line 20 1737, line 5.)
16 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

this requirement because it is written in clear English and [is] as easily understood as possible. (AR 4:903.) That is not enough. A. Rule 1001 Unlawfully Delegates the Boards Legislative Authority to the Districts Air Pollution Control Officer

Rule 1001 requires Parks to develop a Temporary Baseline Monitoring Program (Monitoring Program) and Particulate Matter Reduction Plan (PM Reduction Plan.) (AR 4:889 [Rule 1001, C.1].) Both documents must be approved by the Districts air pollution control officer, Larry Allen (Control Officer). (Ibid.; AR 4:887, 8:1638.) Even if the District determined that there was a problem which the Rule could alleviate, which it has not, the Rule unlawfully delegates uncontrolled authority to the Control Officer to approve Parks Monitoring Program and PM Reduction Plan. The Monitoring Program and PM Reduction Plan are new concepts the District conceived in an attempt to address off-highway vehicles alleged contribution to PM10 at Nipomo Mesa. Parks knows of no other use of a Monitoring Program or PM Reduction Plan. Yet the Rule fails to provide a uniform standard for monitoring locations; sampling methods and equipment; operational and maintenance policies and procedures; data handling, storage, and retrieval methods; and quality control and quality assurance procedures. (AR 5:985-86.) Thus, acceptable standards are left to the unfettered and uncontrolled discretion of the Control Officer in his review and approval of these plans. Legislative bodies may not delegate rule-making authority to an administrative officer, but rather must give that officer specific standards to apply: A municipal legislative body has no power to delegate to an administrative board or officer its exclusive power and function of determining what acts or omissions on the part of an individual are unlawful. The distinction between the legislative and administrative function must be recognized and enforced. [Citation.] A delegation by a municipality of a power giving an administrative officer uncontrolled discretion constitutes a delegation of legislative power. Ordinances, to be valid and effectual, must set forth with clarity some norm or standard by which all persons may know their rights and obligations thereunder. Where an ordinance commits its application to municipal officials it should set up a uniform standard or rule of conduct. [Citation.] Regulations prescribed by ordinance must be clear, definite, and specific in their application and operation, and their application may not be left to the caprice of enforcement officers.
17 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Agnew v. City of Culver City (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 144, 153-154; see also Cal. Jur. 3d, Municipalities 352 [where an ordinance commits its application to municipal officials, it should set a uniform standard or rule of conduct].) Although the Districts Phase 2 study concludes that off-highway vehicle activity on the dunes increases PM10 levels, the study does not quantify that increase over naturally-occurring levels. (AR 2:310; see also AR 3:653, lines 17-19 [the Phase 2 study doesnt quantify what the role or relationship the SVRA has to that figure [PM10 elevations]].) Rather, that is the purpose of the Rules Monitoring Program. (AR 4:888; see also AR 8:1744, lines 12-14 [acknowledging that comparative monitoring is necessary for us [District staff] to truly determine how effective the strategies are and what differences were seeing between natural background and the emissions from the riding area].) Although the Rule requires Parks to develop and implement the Monitoring Program, it is subject to the Control Officers approval. (AR 4:889 [Rule 1001, C.1].) As such, the Rule does not provide Parks or the Control Officer with a clear understanding of the expectations for an acceptable Monitoring Program or PM Reduction Plan. Approval is fully subject to the Control Officers unfettered discretion. This unlawful delegation of the District Boards authority deprives the Rule of its required clarity. Moreover, the Rule assumes that observations of ambient PM10 air concentrations at two locations one downwind of the dunes, one at a control site are sufficient to determine a violation. (See AR 4:900.) However, this is an unrealistic assumption. The Phase 2 study utilized no less than 17 monitors (AR 2:229, 235, 237, 241, 243, 247, 287) to measure wind speed and direction (AR 2:253-54) and particle mass, composition and size (AR 2:287), and the results were inconclusive. (See Section I, above.) The Monitoring Program is predicated on the assumption that feasible, reliable, scientifically valid comparative observations can be made. As exemplified by the Phase 2 studys shortcomings, the District has not shown that this can be done. (See AR 4:913.) And, should Parks be unable to comply with the Rule, it could be subjected to fines of up to $1,000 per day per violation. (Health & Saf. Code, 42400.) As a legislative body, the District
18 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Board has no power to delegate to the Control Officer the Boards power to determine when Parks is acting unlawfully and subject to a fine. (Agnew v. City of Culver City, supra, 147 Cal.App.2d at p. 153 [A municipal legislative body has no power to delegate to an administrative board or officer its exclusive power and function of determining what acts or omissions on the part of an individual are unlawful.].) Moreover, even if Parks timely submits plans, it is not yet clear at what point it would be subject to fine if a submitted plan or other document fails to meet the expectations or as-yet unknown standards of the Control Officer. The decision is fully within the Control Officers unfettered discretion. Although the Control Officer testified at the hearing on Rule 1001 that he intends to sit down and work with Parks before levying any fine (AR 8:1669, line 9), nothing in the Rule requires him to do so. Delegation of uncontrolled discretion is an impermissible delegation of the Boards legislative power. (Agnew v. City of Culver City, supra, 147 Cal.App.2d at p. 153.) Finally, Parks is required to obtain all required permits from appropriate land-use agencies and other affected governmental agencies and satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) if any proposed measure indentified in the Monitoring Program or PM Reduction Plan require environmental review. (AR 4:889 [Rule 1001, C.4].) Each of these requirements has its own compliance schedule. (AR 4:890 [Rule 1001, F.1.e].) However, other land-use or governmental organization approvals are beyond Parks control. Thus, under the Rule, Parks may be subject to fine if it is unable to obtain the requisite land-use approvals by the May 31, 2015 final compliance deadline.7 (AR: 890 [Rule 1001, F.1 & 2].) To be valid, the Rule must set forth with clarity some norm or standard by which Parks can know when its actions or plans would be in violation of the Rule. Because the proposed Rule Although the Rule was amended to provide that Parks will not be subject to civil penalties for failure to meet any timeframe caused solely by delays from regulatory or other oversight agencies required to consider and approve the operators [PM Reduction Plan] or any part thereof, Parks must still commence PM10 mitigation no later than May 31, 2015, or be subject to fine. (AR: 890 [Rule 1001, F.2].) Parks cannot commence PM10 mitigation if it lacks the necessary government approvals.
19 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)
7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

commits application of the rule to the Control Officers unfettered and uncontrolled discretion, it constitutes an unlawful delegation of rule-making authority. B. The Rule is Susceptible to Outcome-Driven Monitoring Because the District adopted the Rule before it first determined the nature and extent of the problem, as Health and Safety Code section 40001 requires, the Rule is susceptible to subjective implementation under the Control Officers discretionary review. The purpose of the Monitoring Program, as set forth in the Districts response to Parks comments to the Rule, is to establish current baseline air quality conditions downwind of the riding area and a comparable non-riding area to help determine the actual effectiveness of the PM [Reduction Plan] measures once they are implemented. (AR 5:987.) However, allowing the Control Officer to approve the monitoring sites allows him to control the outcomes. Parks staff articulated these concerns during testimony on the Rule: As long as were still not in 100 percent agreement on the cause of the problem -- is there a crust, is there not a crust where the vehicle is disturbing it -- that could cause conflict in how we address the problem. (AR 8:1741, lines 9-11.) The challenges to the Oso monitoring station data in connection with the Phase 2 study, discussed in Section I.A.2 above, illustrate this potential for subjective monitoring. For instance, Parks observed that [t]he Oso sand sheet we estimate to be about a tenth the size of the Oceano Dunes SVRA site, but produced, by the limited data available, nearly one-half the level of PM claimed to be attributable to Oceano Dunes SVRA. (AR 3:463). The Geological Survey similarly observed that the Oso [control] station and the CDF [downwind] station are not comparative environments from which to collect wind speed data used to correlate sand movement in the dunes. (AR 3:471.) The District, however, rejected Parks and the Geological Surveys challenges and approved the Phase 2 study. (AR 1:156-57.) As with the Phase 2 study, delegating to the Control Officer unfettered discretion to approve the Monitoring Program will allow him to approve or reject monitoring locations in order to nudge the outcomes to support the Districts notions of what the data should show (i.e., that
20 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PM10 concentrations are greater on the dunes than in the control site approved by the Control Officer). The Control Officer acknowledges that development of the Monitoring Program contemplates cooperation among Parks and the District. (AR 8:1768, lines 23-24 [hopefully, we hire professionals that we can both agree on and we rely on them to provide an unbiased assessment of where the best locations would be].) But nothing in the Rule requires the District to work cooperatively with Parks. And, if the District and Parks cannot mutually agree on a Monitoring Program, the District could fine Parks up to $1,000 per day for every day that the District does not approve Parks Monitoring Program. (Health & Saf. Code, 42400; see also AR 4:896 [Should State Parks fail to meet any of the rule requirements, fines could be levied under the California Health and Safety Code.].) The Rule therefore establishes a coercive mechanism whereby Parks must prepare a Monitoring Program acceptable to the Control Officer or be subject to fine. The Rule therefore lacks clarity because it constitutes an unlawful delegation of authority to the Control Officer, which subjects the Rule to uncertainty and subjective implementation. IV. THE DISTRICT FAILED TO EVALUATE THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RULE Health and Safety Code, sections 40703 and 40922, requires the District to make findings related to the cost effectiveness of a pollution control measure. In particular: In adopting any regulation, the district shall consider, pursuant to Section 40922, and make available to the public, its findings related to the cost effectiveness of a control measure, as well as the basis for the findings and the considerations involved. A district shall make reasonable efforts, to the extent feasible within existing budget constraints, to make specific reference to the direct costs expected to be incurred by regulated parties, including businesses and individuals. (Health & Saf. Code, 40703.) Section 40922 further provides: (a) Each plan prepared pursuant to this chapter shall include an assessment of the cost effectiveness of available and proposed control measures and shall contain a list which ranks the control measures from the least cost-effective to the most costeffective. (b) In developing an adoption and implementation schedule for a specific control measure, the district shall consider the relative cost effectiveness of the measure, as determined under subdivision (a), as well as other factors including, but not limited to, technological feasibility, total emission reduction potential, the rate of reduction, public acceptability, and enforceability.
21 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Health & Saf. Code, 40922.) Moreover, section 40910 requires air pollution control districts to consider the cost-effectiveness of their air quality programs, rules, regulations, and enforcement practices in addition to other relevant factors, and shall strive to achieve the most efficient methods of air pollution control. (Health & Saf. Code, 40922.) The District has defined cost effectiveness in its own Clean Air Plan, applicable countywide: Cost-effectiveness is typically stated as the total cost of a measure, divided by the total emissions reduced, over a specified time frame. It is usually expressed as a rate, in dollars per pound, or ton, of pollutants reduced. The use of rates makes comparison between different control measures possible. This is important because, in the air quality arena, cost-effectiveness has come to have a relative meaning. A measure may be deemed cost-effective if it reduces emissions at a cost per ton comparable to other measures recently adopted or proposed for that pollutant. (See RJN, Exh. 2 [2001 Clean Air Plan San Luis Obispo County, p. 5-2].) Similarly, in Western States Petroleum Assn v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1022-23, the court affirmed a cost per ton of PM10 reduced as an appropriate costeffectiveness analysis. (See also American Coatings Assn., Inc. v. South Coast Air Quality Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446, 469 [cost-effectiveness of regulation limiting pollutants in paints and coating estimated at $13,317 per ton].) As set forth in the Districts Clean Air Plan, in 2001 it typically cost $12,000 to remove a ton of particulate matter from a stationary source. (RJN, Exh. 2, p. 5-2.) By its own definition, the District has not determined the cost-effectiveness of Rule 1001, because it has failed to calculate the cost per ton of pollution abatement. Rather, the District simply estimates that development of the PM Reduction Program alone before any actual implementation could cost Parks $200,000 to $400,000 and possibly more. (AR 4:900.) In addition, the District estimates that the cost of equipment to be $69,000 for each monitoring site, and another $15,500 in annual operating costs for each site, with a minimum of two monitoring sites, and possibly more. (Ibid.; see also AR 8:1660, lines 13-17; 8:1662, lines 14-21.) This cost would be entirely borne by Parks. (AR 8:1662, lines 23-24.) Accordingly, the District estimates that Parks could incur more than $500,000, plus additional annual operating costs, before it even
22 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

implements the PM Reduction Plan. But the actual cost of implementing the PM Reduction Plan, and its effect on PM10 levels at Nipomo Mesa, is wholly unknown at this time. The District contends that its own cost-effectiveness requirement under the Clean Air Plan is not applicable in this instance because the individual strategies and their emission reduction effectiveness is currently unknown, and will depend entirely on the measures proposed by the applicant. In the process of developing the PM Reduction Plan, the affected source will develop the control strategies, rank their effectiveness and propose those measures they deem necessary and feasible, subject to [air pollution control district] approval. (AR 4:900; see also AR 8:1660, lines 8-9 [it would be up to the operator [sic] the SVRA to determine which projects are most cost-effective.].) In other words, the District has shifted the burden of determining the cost effectiveness of Rule 1001 to Parks. However, nothing in the Health and Safety Code authorizes an air pollution control district to abdicate its responsibility and require the regulated entity to determine the cost effectiveness of a regulation after it is adopted. The District believes that the Rule could reduce PM10 emission exceedences by about 75% compared to existing conditions. (AR: 4:899.) However, the District does not offer any evidence to support its conclusion that the Rule will achieve this reduction, nor does the District attempt to estimate the cost to achieve this reduction.8 (See AR 4:312 [there is no agreement as to the degree to which Oceano Dunes SVRA activity contributes to elevated PM10 on the Mesa or how PM10 can be controlled and there is no scientific basis to estimate the scope of costeffective control measures].) Moreover, because the District does not quantify its reduction target in terms of any rate over time, it is impossible for the District or Parks to determine the cost effectiveness of the Rule. As Parks explained in its comments to the Rule, the Draft Rule imagines that the [air pollution control district] directive can be met, without taking into account the practicality of measures and the financial and environmental cost to the State. (AR 4:912.) In addition, the Districts 75% figure is hopelessly vague. Does the District mean that off-highway vehicle riding accounts for 75% of the Dunes PM10 emissions, that the Rule will reduce 75% of the off-highway vehicle riding contribution to the Dunes PM10 emissions, or simply that the Rule will reduce the Dunes PM10 emissions by 75% without quantifying the amount caused by off-highway vehicle riding (meaning that the Rule could require Parks to reduce PM10 emissions below ambient levels)?
23 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)
8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Finally, because the Rule deferred the cost effectiveness determination, it does not evaluate other factors such as technological feasibility, total emission reduction potential, the rate of reduction, public acceptability, and enforceability, as Health and Safety Code section 40922, subdivision (b), requires. State Parks, as the real party-in-interest, is entitled to know the expense of implementation prior to being subject to the Rule. But, without baseline information of the extent to which riding on the dunes actually results in PM10 emission exceedences, if at all, it simply is not possible to evaluate the potential cost of control measures or their potential effectiveness. Therefore, Rule 1001 is invalid under Health and Safety Code sections 40703 and 40922. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Parks respectfully requests that the Court grant Friends petition and set aside Rule 1001

Dated: October 11, 2012

Respectfully Submitted, KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California CHRISTINA BULL ARNDT Supervising Deputy Attorney General

MITCHELL E. RISHE Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Real Party-in-Interest, California Department of Parks and Recreation
LA2012104287 51175599.doc

24 Parks Opening Brief in Support of Petition (CV 120013)