Presented by Charles E. Robinson, P.E. of LFR Inc. GROWING COMMUNITIES ON KARST 2007

1. Transforming an Oil Field Waste Disposal Facility into 300 Residential Units and an Ecological Preserve-Integration of Endangered Species Impacts with Remedial Processes and Deal Structure to Align Interests Presented by Charles E. Robinson, P.E. of LFR Inc. GROWING COMMUNITIES ON KARST 2007 September 12, 2007

2. Presentation Outline • Background • Brief History • Development Challenges • Previously Extinct- Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch • EIR and Settlement Constraints • Development Structure • Complimentary Challenges and Solutions

3. Background • Located in the City of Oxnard, CA • Near Ocean- infill property • 90-acre landfill used for oil field waste disposal (mostly drilling muds) • Operated and Land-farmed from 1954 – 1982

4. North Shore Site Location

5. Site Location

6. North Shore - 1978

7. North Shore – Pre-remediation

8. History • Operational Disposal Facility 1954-1980 • “Closed” in 1981 • Sold by original land holder in early 1990’s • Early investigations found TPH, Ba, VOCs, PCBs- TPH dominated approach

9. History • RWQCB approved RAP- 1996 • On-site treatment and disposal of waste material • Clean-up levels to be finalized • EIR Performed • Remediation approved • Discovery of Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch • Complex Litigation and Negotiation • Califonia Coastal Commission- Coastal Development Plan • Development permitted to fund groundwater remediation

10. Ventura Marsh Milk-Vetch • Last seen in 1983 • Listed as possibly extinct in 1993 • Found on the North Shore site in 1997 • Listed as an endangered species in 2001 • Scientific name: Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus

11. Ventura Marsh Milk-Vetch

12. Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch • Endangered Status required consideration through State Agencies and Courts through EIR • Negotiated mitigation: • UCSB funded to establish seed bank • Off-site locations for Milk-Vetch Establishment • Mitigation property • Milk Vetch Preservation Area • Resource Protection Area

13. Residential and Preserve Areas

14. Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch • USFWS found at fault for Failure to Designate Critical Habitat • Lack of knowledge forced “assumed” habitat designation • USFWS designated entire Site as critical habitat to satisfy legal requirement

15. History Continued • Project transferred to DTSC in 2004 • Risk orientation • Residential land use • RWQCB rejection of ‘96 RAP • RI/FS/RAP completed in late 2005 • Consistent with RWQCB RAP • Almost all affected material left on-site • Remedial objectives defined • Shift away from TPH focus to other chemicals-PCBs, VOCs, Dioxins, and Barium

16. Site Characterization/Remediation

17. Remedial Action • Soil Consolidation- low transport potential for PCB, Dioxin, TPH, and metals- Title 27 (Landfill) exclusion for 5’ to groundwater • VOC Area • High soils treated ex-situ SVE • Low soils used as SCA cap • Groundwater treatment • NAPL excavation • Resource Protection Area- restricted use- Similar Demands as Soil Consolidation Area

18. Post Remediation Cross Section

19. History Continued • EPA- Toxic Substance Control Act • PCB responsibility • Initial approach to use pre-1978 exclusion rejected because of minor soil movement • Risk based approach favored • Review of DTSC/LFR RAP • Change in approach from self-implemented to EPA discressionary review mandated ESA Section 7 Consultation

20. History Continued • EPA/US Fish and Wildlife Service- Endangered Species Act • Only wild Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch population • Prior designation of Critical Habitat named Primary Constituent Elements • VM Milk-vetch requires 30” to water table and Site water table is 30’ deep • “impermeable” sludge saved Milk Vetch from extinction • Evaluation of PCEs demonstrated no degradation of critical habitat • Unique consideration of ESA and Remediation

21. Development Issues- Legal and Financial Tools Employed • Need to Provide Development Investors Certainty • Remedial Uncertainty • Geotechnical Considerations • Liquefaction • Differential Settlement • Marketability • Time for Completion • Mitigation Complications

22. Guaranteed Site Solution Contract • Aligns Interests of LFR and Development Goals • Tiers of Incentives by Contract • Time Consideration • Downside and Upside Incentives • Linkage with Insurance • Forces Proactive/Thinking Project Management

23. Legal and Financial Tools • Stop Loss Insurance on Remediation • Based Upon Preliminary Agency Discussions and Original RWQCB RAP • Based Upon Early Engineer’s Estimate with Contractor Input- agreed to evaluate post-RAP adoption • Sub-limit for Mitigation Property

24. Changes From Inception • Agency Change- RWQCB vs. DTSC • Contaminant Emphasis Change • Dioxins • PCB- TSCA • VOCs- DNAPL and high concentrations • Higher volumes • Vapor Concern of Agencies

25. Geotechnical Concerns

26. Remedial Action

27. Remediation

28. Status- • Remediation nearly completed- October • Geotechnical and Soil Treatment Costs Diminished • Groundwater Costs Increased • Contingency used 50%- in line with budgets • Substantially below SIR • Time increased for both entitlement and remedial issues

29. Current Site Status

30. Conceptual Site with Homes

31. Solution?

32. Questions?