HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment 3a-17 - Lozeau Drury Comment Letter Bracketed redactedVIA EMAIL
February 27, 2023
Oscar Romero, Project Planner
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
oromero@chulavistaca.gov
Re: Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration for Shinohara Business
Center Project
Dear Mr. Romero,
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility
SAFER”) regarding the proposed development of a 173,432 square foot warehouse
and office building, located at 517 Shinohara Lane in the City of Chula Vista (“Project”).
The City of Chula Vista (“City”) has prepared a recirculated mitigated negative
declaration (“MND”) for the Project. We request that the City prepare an environmental
impact report (“EIR”) for the Project because there is a fair argument that the Project
may have adverse environmental impacts.
These comments are supported by the comments of the expert consulting firm,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), authored by Dr. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
and Matthew Hagemann, C. Hg. (Exhibit A). It is also supported by comments from
expert wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood (Exhibit C). We incorporate the SWAPE and
Smallwood comments herein by reference. As explained below and in the SWAPE and
Smallwood comments, there is a fair argument that the proposed Project may have
significant adverse environmental impacts, and an EIR is therefore required.
LEGAL STANDARD
As the Supreme Court 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 Environment v. South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320, citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los
RECIRCULATED IS/MND
LETTER 1
L1-1
L1-2
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 2 of 13
Angeles, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los
Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491, 504–505). “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 Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002)
103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109.)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City
of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1214; 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 University of California (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 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.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d) (emphasis added); 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 (CEQA
Guidelines § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have
a significant environmental effect. (Pub. Res. Code §§ 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, 129 Cal.App.3d
436, 440 (1989).) CEQA contains a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of
environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927 (emphasis in
original).)
DISCUSSION
I.The MND Fails to Provide Adequate Information to Evaluate the Project’s
Potential Air Quality Impacts.
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the
environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the MND’s analysis of the Project’s
impacts on air quality. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit A and
their comments are briefly summarized here.
L1-2
Cont.
L1-3
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 3 of 13
The MND estimated construction and operation emissions from the Project using
California Emissions Estimator Version 2022.1 (“CalEEMod”). (MND, p. 34.) This model,
which is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions, relies on
recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of
factors. (Ex. A, p. 1-2.) CEQA requires any changes to the default values to be justified
by substantial evidence. (Id.)
The version of CalEEMod used by the City to model air emissions does not
provide complete output files because it is only a soft-release of the new program. As a
result, the calculations prepared by the City fail to provide information on the exact
parameters used to calculate the Project’s emissions. Without these parameters,
SWAPE is unable to verify that the MND’s air modeling and analysis are accurate. (Ex.
A, p. 3.) This conflicts with the public accountability purposes of CEQA, and an EIR
should be prepared which provides the model’s output files, so that the public can fully
assess the Project’s potential impacts.
II.The MND Failed to Adequately Evaluate Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
from the Project.
One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land
development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during
Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less
than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less
than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and
cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard,
particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have
other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board
CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated
asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations;
decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with
heart or lung disease.1
The MND prepared a health risk assessment (“HRA”) to analyze the Project’s
operational diesel-powered truck emissions, but did not prepare an HRA for
construction-related emissions. The MND nonetheless concludes that the Project’s
construction-related emissions will not impact human health. This conclusion is not
supported by substantial evidence. Instead, it is based on the bare conclusion that the
temporary construction schedule and limited number of heavy-duty construction
equipment would render the impact automatically less-than-significant. (MND, p. 36.)
This conclusion and its rationale are wrong for three reasons. (See Ex. A, p. 4-5.)
First, by failing to prepare a full quantified construction HRA, the MND fails to
connect emissions to health impacts. (Ex. A at 4.) In failing to connect TAC emissions to
1 See CARB Resources - Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, available at
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.).
L1-4
L1-5
L1-6
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 4 of 13
potential health risks to nearby receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA
requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse
impacts on human health caused by those emissions. (Id.; See Sierra Club v. County of
Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.)
Second, failing to conduct an HRA for the Project’s construction-related
emissions violates the California Department of Justice policy. The DOJ recommends
the preparation of 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. OEHHA released
its most recent guidance document in 2015 describing which types of projects warrant
preparation of an HRA. See “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for
Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/hotspots2015.html. 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. (Ex. A at 5.) The OEHHA document also
recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be
evaluated for the duration of the project. (Id.). SWAPE therefore recommends that a
quantified HRA be prepared for the Project’s entire 18-month construction period. (Id.)
Finally, failing to combine the cancer risk from Project construction and operation
is inconsistent with OEHHA guidance. Although the MND includes an operational HRA,
it does not evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a
result of construction and operation together. (Ex. A, p. 5.) OEHHA guidance states that
the cancer risk calculations from construction and operation must be added together to
determine cancer risk at the receptor location. (Id.) As the MND fails to do this, its
analysis is incomplete and inadequate under CEQA. The City must prepare an EIR
which calculates, and then adds the Project’s construction and operational cancer risks
and compares them to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District’s (SDAPCD)
threshold of 10 in one million. Without this analysis, the MND’s conclusion that the
Project will not significantly impact human health is not supported by substantial
evidence.
SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from
Project construction and operation using air quality dispersion model AERSCREEN. (Id.
at 5-10.) SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 150 meters and analyzed
impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SDAPCD
guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. (Id. at 9.) SWAPE found that the excess
cancer risk over the course of Project construction is approximately 32.6 in one million
for infants, and 34.7 million in total. (Id.) When added to the Project’s estimated
operational cancer risk of 1.08 in one million, the cancer risk over the course of a 30-
year residential lifetime is 35.8 in one million. The infant and lifetime cancer risks
therefore exceed the SDAPCD’s threshold of 10 in one million. (Id.)
L1-6
Cont.
L1-7
L1-8
L1-9
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 5 of 13
SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a
significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. An EIR must be
prepared to analyze and mitigate this significant impact.
III. The MND Fails to Require Mitigation Measures to Reduce the Project’s
Adverse Environmental Impacts.
Because SWAPE’s comments indicate that the Project will have significant
impacts on air quality and human health, mitigation measures must be adopted to
reduce these impacts to less-than-significant. This is especially important given the
Project’s proximity to residential areas.
Numerous mitigation measures have been identified to address air pollutant
emissions associated with warehouse projects such as this one. The urgency of
adopting these measures is increasing because of the increasing prevalence of
warehouse and distribution centers in Chula Vista, and the accompanying increase in
diesel particulate emissions from heavy duty truck trips generated by those facilities.
The following mitigation measures, identified by the California Attorney General to
address air pollution from warehouses, must be considered:
Construction Mitigation Measures]
Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric-diesel or zero-
emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment
to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including
this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts,
with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant
construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction
activities.
Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position
for more than 10 hours per day.
Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing
electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators
to supply their power.
Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction
vehicles and equipment can charge.
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 three 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.
L1-9
Cont.
L1-10
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 6 of 13
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.
Operational Mitigation Measures]
Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage22 to or from the
project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030
Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and
yard trucks, to be zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling
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 three 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 local air district, and the
building manager.
Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified
electrical generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s
projected energy needs, including all electrical chargers.
Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future
coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation
capacity feasible.
Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to
the number of dock doors at the project.
Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging
stations.
Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the
underlying property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide
refrigerated warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric
transport refrigeration units at every dock door and requiring truck operators
with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at loading
docks.
Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary
electrical room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle
charging capability.
L1-10
Cont.
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 7 of 13
Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations
proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example,
requiring at least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with
electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance)
Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for
a future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
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 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.
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.
Designing to LEED green building certification 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 who own, operate, or
hire trucking carriers with more than 100 trucks to use carriers that are
SmartWay carriers.
L1-10
Cont.
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 8 of 13
Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl
Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
California Department of Justice, “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation
Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Updated September
2022” (attached as Exhibit B).
IV. Substantial Evidence Supports a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have
Significant Adverse Biological Impacts that the MND Fails to Adequately
Analyze and Mitigate.
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the MND’s analysis of the Project’s biological
impacts and prepared a comment, dated February 24, 2023. Dr. Smallwood’s February
2023 comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit C and his comments are briefly
summarized here. Note, Dr. Smallwood also prepared comments on the previous MND,
circulated in September 2022. Dr. Smallwood’s February 2023 comments reference his
September 2022 comments, and his September 2022 comments are attached as
Exhibit D.
a.The MND is inadequate in its characterization of the existing
environmental setting as it relates to wildlife.
Dr. Smallwood’s comments are supported by a site visit performed by Noriko
Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University
Los Angeles. (Ex. C, p. 1.) Noriko visited the site on February 18, 2023 from 7:05 –
10:15 am. (Id.) She viewed the site from the northwest, northeast, and southeast
corners, using binoculars to scan for wildlife. (Id.) Noriko also visited the Project site in
September 2022 in support of comments on the previous MND for this Project. (See,
Exhibit D.) Between her two visits, she observed 33 distinct species of vertebrate
wildlife, 9 of which are special-status. (Id., see Ex. C, p. 8-9.)
The special-status species observed include the following: the Allen’s
hummingbird, the Western gull, the California gull, the double-crested cormorant, the
Red-tailed hawk, the great horned owl, the Nuttall’s woodpecker, the California thrasher,
and the Western bluebird. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood noted that such a high percentage of
special-status species on a site is unusual and indicates a high level of endemism. (Ex.
C, p. 1.)
Dr. Smallwood found numerous flaws in the City’s consultant’s analysis of
baseline conditions. First, he found that the reconnaissance survey performed for the
City failed to give methodological details necessary to interpret the survey’s results,
such as who completed the survey, what time it started, and how long it lasted. (Ex. C,
p. 10-11.) Such details are important to understanding whether survey personnel were
qualified, and whether their survey effort was reasonable. (Id. at 11.)
L1-10
Cont.
L1-11
L1-12
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 9 of 13
The City’s consultant’s report also improperly dismissed the importance of its
observation of a monarch butterfly onsite, a dismissal which Dr. Smallwood states is
based on an inaccurate characterization of the monarch butterfly’s habitat. (Id. at 11-
12.) Dr. Smallwood found that the observation of a monarch butterfly onsite is evidence
that the site at least serves as part of its migration route, and more analysis is therefore
necessary to assess how the Project will impact this and other special-status species.
Id. at 12.) Lastly, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the City’s consultant’s report failed to
conduct the appropriate surveys for assessing the presence of burrowing owls onsite,
and failed to adequately report the likelihood of California ground squirrels onsite. (Id. at
11-12.)
Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA
baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s
anticipated impacts. (Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist.
2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.) A skewed baseline such as the one used by the City here
ultimately “mislead(s) the public” by engendering inaccurate analyses of environmental
impacts, mitigation measures and cumulative impacts for biological resources. (See San
Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park
Homeowners, 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711.)
Based on Dr. Smallwood’s own assessment of database reviews and Noriko’s
site visit of September 2022, Dr. Smallwood concluded in his September 2022
comments that “124 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife are known to occur
near enough to the site to be analyzed for occurrence potential at one time or another.”
Ex. D, p. 14, see Table 2, p. 15-19). In September 2022, Dr. Smallwood therefore
stated that “sufficient survey effort should be directed to the site to either confirm these
species use the site or to support absence determinations.” (Id. at 14.) Indeed, Noriko’s
second site visit in February 2023 is evidence that additional surveys would likely result
in additional species observations – Noriko’s February 2023 site visit resulted in
detection of 12 (57%) more species of vertebrate wildlife than she had previously
detected, including 5 (56%) more special-status species. (Ex. C, p. 7.) Because of the
City’s failure to adequately characterize the site, a fair argument exists that the Project
may have a significant impact on wildlife requiring the preparation of an EIR.
b.The Project will have a significant impact on special status species as a
result of habitat loss.
Dr. Smallwood reiterates in his February 2023 comments that the Project would
contribute to a decline in birds in North America, a trend that has been happening over
the last approximately 50 years largely due to habitat loss and fragmentation and would
be further exacerbated by this Project. (Ex. C, p. 17; Ex. D, p. 21-22.) Based on studies
on the subject, Dr. Smallwood estimated that the presence of the Project on the site
could prevent the production of 241 fledglings per year, which would in turn contribute to
the lost capacity of 274 birds per year. (Ex. D, p. 21-22.) The City must address this
impact in an EIR.
L1-12
Cont.
L1-13
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 10 of 13
c.The Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement.
The MND’s assessment of whether the Project would interfere with wildlife
movement remains flawed. (Ex. C, p. 17; Ex. D, p. 22.) The City’s consultant’s report
states that “[t]here are no wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on site; therefore, there
are no direct impacts to wildlife corridors or habitat linkages.” (Ex. C, p. 17; MND,
Appendix D, p. 13.) However, Dr. Smallwood states that the MND’s assessment of
impacts of wildlife movement assumes that “only disruption of the function of a wildlife
corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region.” (Ex. C at 17.) However, Dr.
Smallwood states:
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.
Id.) Dr. Smallwood’s expert opinion constitutes substantial evidence that the Project
may significantly impact wildlife movement. An EIR must be prepared to properly
analyze and mitigate this impact.
d.The Project will have a significant impact on special status species as a
result of traffic-related fatalities.
The MND estimates that the Project would generate 301,454 vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) from construction and a subsequent 50,303 daily VMT during operation
of the Project. However, the MND still fails to adequately analyze the Project’s impact
on wildlife that will be caused by the traffic on roadways servicing the Project. Although
the MND addresses (albeit in one conclusory sentence) the potential for traffic impacts
onsite, Dr. Smallwood found that the MND’s conclusion was misleading because it
examined the potential for impacts solely onsite. (Ex. C, p. 17.) Dr. Smallwood points
out that “wildlife collision mortality would occur along the roads used by project-
generated traffic, many reaches of which would occur far from the project site. (Id.)
As noted in Dr. Smallwood’s September 2022 comments, vehicle collisions with
special-status species is not a minor issue, but rather results in the death of millions of
species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains: “. . . 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).” (Ex. D, p. 23.)
Using the Project’s VMT estimates and information from a scientific study on
road mortality, Dr. Smallwood was able to predict the Project-generated traffic impacts
L1-14
L1-15
February 27, 2023
Shinohara Business Center Project Recirculated MND
Page 11 of 13
to wildlife. (Ex. C at 18.) Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project would cause an
accumulated 10,061 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year, not including 165 caused by
construction traffic. (Id.) An EIR must be prepared which includes analysis and
mitigation of the Project’s impacts on special-status species from the increased traffic
generated by the Project.
e.The MND failed to address the cumulative impacts of past, ongoing, and
future projects on wildlife.
The MND failed to analyze cumulative impacts of the project on biological
resources. (Ex. C at 18.) The MND’s cumulative impacts analysis relies on the City of
Chula Vista’s General Plan Vision 2020, and impacts are analyzed under the General
Plan EIR. However, when relying on an approved plan to mitigate impacts, an agency
must “explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or
program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not
cumulatively considerable.” (Id., quoting CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3).) Here, the
MND did not explain how implementing requirements from the General Plan EIR would
minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts.” (Ex. C at
18.) An EIR must be prepared with a revised cumulative biological impacts section
which adequately meets CEQA requirements.
V.CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City prepare an
environmental impact report to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse
environmental impacts. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
L1-15
Cont.
L1-16
L1-17
EXHIBIT A
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
February 24, 2023
Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94618
Subject: Comments on the Shinohara Business Center Project (SCH No. 2022080431)
Dear Ms. Fuentes,
We have reviewed the January 2023 Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
IS/MND”) for the Shinohara Business Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of Chula Vista
City”). The Project proposes to construct 168,926-square-feet (“SF”) of warehouse space and 9,230-SF
of office space on the 9.72-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 QualityFailuretoProvide Complete CalEEMod Output Files
Land use development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) typically
evaluate air quality impacts and calculate potential criteria air pollutant emissions using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 42). 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 CEQA
1 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available
at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
Letter 1 -
Exhibit A
L1A-1
L1A-2
2
requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into
the model, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are calculated, and “output files” are
generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the
Project’s air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide
justification for the values selected.
Regarding the evaluation of the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with Project construction and
operation, the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Impact Study (“AQ, GHG, & HRA Study”) as
Appendix C to the IS/MND, states:
The latest version of CalEEMod (Version 2022.1) was used to estimate the construction and
operation emissions” (p. 34).
As indicated above, the AQ, GHG, & HRA Study uses CalEEMod Version 2022.1 to estimate the Project’s
emissions.2 However, this poses a problem, as the soft-release of the new program fails to provide
complete output files. Specifically, the "User Changes to Default Data" table no longer provides the
quantitative counterparts to the changes to the default values (see excerpt below) (Appendix C, pp.
158):
However, previous CalEEMod Versions, such as 2020.4.0, include the specific numeric changes to the
model’s default values (see example excerpt below):
2 “CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Soft Release.” California Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA), 2022, available at: https://caleemod.com/.
L1A-2
Cont.
L1A-3
3
Thus, the output files associated with CalEEMod Version 2022.1 fail to divulge the exact parameters
utilized to calculate Project emissions. To remedy this issue, the IS/MND should have provided access to
the model’s “.json” output files, which allow third parties to review the model’s revised input
parameters.3 Without access to the complete output files, including the specific numeric changes to
default values, we cannot verify that the IS/MND’s air modeling and subsequent analysis is an accurate
reflection of the proposed Project. As a result, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated air
quality analysis that correctly provides the complete output files for CalEEMod Version 2022.1, or
includes an updated model using an older release of CalEEMod.4
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated
The IS/MND conducts a health risk assessment (“HRA”) evaluating the impacts from exposure to toxic air
contaminant (“TAC”) emissions from diesel-powered trucks during Project operation. Specifically, the
IS/MND estimates that the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive
receptors as a result of Project operation would be 1.08 in one million, which would not exceed the
SDAPCD significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 46, Table 22).
3 “Video Tutorials for CalEEMod Version 2022.1.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA),
May 2022, available at: https://www.caleemod.com/tutorials.
4 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available
at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model.
L1A-3
Cont.
L1A-4
4
However, regarding the Project’s health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND
states:
Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment and the
construction schedule, the project can qualitatively be determined to not result in a substantial
long-term source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk.
Furthermore, construction-based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust
emissions) do not exceed any local or regional thresholds. Therefore, no significant short-term
toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during the project's construction” (p. 36)
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant
construction-related health risk impact because the temporary construction schedule and limited
number of heavy-duty equipment would not result in substantial diesel particulate matter (“DPM”)
emissions. 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 three reasons.
First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction 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.”5 This poses a problem, as construction of the Project would produce DPM
emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 18
months (p. 58). However, the IS/MND fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project
construction or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health
effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s construction-related 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 the potential adverse impacts on
human health.
5 “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.
L1A-4
Cont.
L1A-5
5
Second, 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.6 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for
Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015, as referenced by the IS/MND (p. 38). 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.7
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).”8
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 18-month construction
period. 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.
Third, while the IS/MND includes a HRA evaluating the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors
as a result of Project operation, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby,
existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together. According to OEHHA
guidance, “the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to
yield cancer risk at the receptor location.”9 However, the Project’s HRA fails to sum each age bin to
evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project’s total construction and operation. This is
incorrect and thus, an updated analysis should quantify and sum the entirety of the Project’s
construction and operational cancer risks to compare to the SDAPCD’s specific numeric threshold of 10
in one million. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates a 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
6 “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.
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.
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. 8-18.
9 “Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-4
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
L1A-6
L1A-7
L1A-8
6
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-related 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 174 pounds of DPM over the 562-day construction period.14 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:
173.5 562 × 453.6 × 1 24 1 3,600 =. / Using
this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00162 grams per second (“g/s”). Construction
was simulated as a 9.72-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions
of 280- by 140-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 Chula Vista 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. U.S. EPA guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration
of an air pollutant to be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10%.16 According
to the IS/MND the nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 30 feet, or 9 meters, west
of the Project site (p. 34). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR
is located approximately 150 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration 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. 15 “
Chula Vista.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0613392. 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. L1A-
8 Cont.
7
estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 1.541 µg/m3 DPM at approximately
150 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average
concentration of 0.1541 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR.17
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by
OEHHA, as recommended by SDAPCD.18 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)19
Age
Sensitivity
Factor20
Exposure
Duration
years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home21
Exposure
Frequency
days/year)22
Exposure
Time
hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 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
17 See Attachment B for AERSCREEN Output Files.
18 “Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Rule 1200 Health Risk Assessments (HRAs).” SDAPCD, July 2019,
available at: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/APCD_1200_
Supplemental_Guidelines.pdf.
19 “Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Health Risk Assessments (HRAs).”
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) July 2022, available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/permits/air-toxics/Hot-Spots-Guidelines.pdf; see also
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.
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 8.3.
21 “Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Health Risk Assessments (HRAs).”
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) July 2022, available at:
https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/permits/air-toxics/Hot-Spots-Guidelines.pdf, pp. 4.
22 “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.
L1A-8
Cont.
8
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: , = × × × ×
where: DoseAIR = dose by
inhalation (
mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant
in air (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, to mg, L to m3) To calculate the overall
cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group: = × × × × 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 562-day construction schedule, the
annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester
of pregnancy (0.25 years) and first 1.29 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The
results of our calculations are shown in the table below. L1A-8 Cont.
9
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 0.1541 2.10E-06
Construction 1.29 0.1541 3.26E-05
Operation 0.71 * *
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 3.26E-05
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 * *
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 * *
Lifetime 30 3.47E-05
Operational cancer risk calculated separately in the IS/MND.
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infant
receptors at the MEIR located approximately 150 meters away, over the course of Project construction,
are approximately 2.10 and 32.6 in one million, respectively. The total excess cancer risk associated with
Project construction is approximately 34.7 in one million. When summing the Project’s construction-
related cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the IS/MND’s operational cancer risk of 1.08 in one
million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 35.8 in one million over the course of a 30-
year residential lifetime (p. 46, Table 22).23 As such, the infant and lifetime cancer risks exceed the
SDAPCD 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).
23 Calculated: 34.7 in one million + 1.08 in one million = 35.78 in one million.
L1A-8
Cont.
10
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.”24
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.
MitigationFeasibleMitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions
Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant 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 the California Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.25 Therefore,
to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric-diesel or zero emission, where
available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment to be equipped with CARB Tier
IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents,
purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply
the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction
activities.
Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10
hours per day.
Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing electrical hook
ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to supply their power.
Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction vehicles and
equipment can charge.
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 three 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.
24 “Exposure Assessment Tools by Tiers and Types - Screening-Level and Refined.” U.S. EPA, available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-tiers-and-types-screening-level-and-refined.
25 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, September 2022, available at:
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 8 – 10.
L1A-8
Cont.
L1A-9
11
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 all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage to or from the project site to be zero-
emission beginning in 2030.
Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be
zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling 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 three 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
local air district, and the building manager.
Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation
capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy needs, including all
electrical chargers.
Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future coverage of solar
panels and installing the maximum solar power generation capacity feasible.
Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the number of dock
doors at the project.
Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations.
Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying property
ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated warehouse space,
constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door and
requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration units to use the electric plugs when at
loading docks.
Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical room to
accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability.
Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the
number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at least 10% of all employee parking
spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle charging stations of at least Level 2 charging
performance)
Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a future increase in
the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
L1A-9
Cont.
12
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
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.
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.
Designing to LEED green building certification 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 who own, operate, or hire trucking carriers with more than 100
trucks 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.
L1A-9
Cont.
L1A-10
13
An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an updated
health risk 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
L1A-11
L1A-12
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.07 Total DPM (lbs)173.4794521
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.383561644 Total DPM (g)78690.27945
Construction Duration (days)306 Emission Rate (g/s)0.001620582
Total DPM (lbs)117.369863 Release Height (meters)3
Total DPM (g)53238.96986 Total Acreage 9.72
Start Date 3/1/2023 Max Horizontal (meters)280.48
End Date 1/1/2024 Min Horizontal (meters)140.24
Construction Days 306 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5
Setting Urban
Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.04 Population 277,220
Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.219178082 Start Date 3/1/2023
Construction Duration (days)256 End Date 9/13/2024
Total DPM (lbs)56.10958904 Total Construction Days 562
Total DPM (g)25451.30959 Total Years of Construction 1.54
Start Date 1/1/2024 Total Years of Operation 28.46
End Date 9/13/2024
Construction Days 256
2024
Construction
2023 Total
Attachment A
L1A-13
AERSCREEN 21112 AERMOD 21112 02/21/23
14:41:48
TITLE:Shinohara Business Center,Construction
AREA PARAMETERS
SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.162E 02 g/s 0.129E 01 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE:0.412E 07 g/(s m2) 0.327E 06 lb/(hr m2)
AREA HEIGHT:3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:280.48 meters 920.21 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:140.24 meters 460.11 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN:URBAN
POPULATION:277220
INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE 5000.meters 16404.feet
BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS
BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON POINT SOURCES
FLOW SECTOR ANALYSIS
25 meter receptor spacing:1.meters 5000.meters
MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1 HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS ug/m3)deg)m)PERIOD
1*1.000 1.565 20 150.0 WIN
worst case diagonal
Attachment B
L1A-14
MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS
MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:250.0 310.0 K)
MINIMUM WIND SPEED: 0.5 m/s
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:10.000 meters
SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT:AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE:Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE:Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON:Winter
ALBEDO:0.35
BOWEN RATIO:1.50
ROUGHNESS LENGTH: 1.000 meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY U*)NOT ADUSTED
METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT
YR MO DY JDY HR
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U*W*DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS
1.30 0.043 9.000 0.020 999.21.6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50
HT REF TA HT
10.0 310.0 2.0
AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES
OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE
MAXIMUM MAXIMUM
DIST 1 HR CONC DIST 1 HR CONC
m) (ug/m3)(m) (ug/m3)
1.00 1.214 2525.00 0.3073E 01
25.00 1.296 2550.00 0.3032E 01
50.00 1.370 2575.00 0.2993E 01
75.00 1.433 2600.00 0.2980E 01
100.00 1.490 2625.00 0.2942E 01
125.00 1.541 2650.00 0.2904E 01
150.00 1.565 2675.00 0.2867E 01
175.00 1.127 2700.00 0.2830E 01
200.00 0.8891 2725.00 0.2795E 01
225.00 0.7540 2750.00 0.2760E 01
250.00 0.6610 2775.00 0.2726E 01
275.00 0.5863 2800.00 0.2693E 01
300.00 0.5248 2825.00 0.2660E 01
325.00 0.4738 2850.00 0.2628E 01
350.00 0.4306 2875.00 0.2597E 01
375.00 0.3939 2900.00 0.2566E 01
400.00 0.3621 2925.00 0.2537E 01
425.00 0.3346 2950.00 0.2507E 01
450.00 0.3104 2975.00 0.2478E 01
475.00 0.2894 3000.00 0.2450E 01
500.00 0.2704 3025.00 0.2422E 01
525.00 0.2535 3050.00 0.2395E 01
550.00 0.2385 3075.00 0.2369E 01
575.00 0.2248 3100.00 0.2343E 01
600.00 0.2125 3125.00 0.2317E 01
625.00 0.2014 3150.00 0.2292E 01
650.00 0.1912 3175.00 0.2267E 01
675.00 0.1818 3200.00 0.2243E 01
700.00 0.1731 3225.00 0.2219E 01
725.00 0.1652 3250.00 0.2196E 01
750.00 0.1580 3275.00 0.2173E 01
775.00 0.1513 3300.00 0.2150E 01
800.00 0.1450 3325.00 0.2128E 01
825.00 0.1392 3350.00 0.2107E 01
850.00 0.1337 3375.00 0.2085E 01
875.00 0.1286 3400.00 0.2064E 01
900.00 0.1238 3425.00 0.2044E 01
925.00 0.1194 3450.00 0.2024E 01
950.00 0.1152 3475.00 0.2004E 01
975.00 0.1112 3500.00 0.1984E 01
1000.00 0.1076 3525.00 0.1965E 01
1025.00 0.1040 3550.00 0.1946E 01
1050.00 0.1007 3575.00 0.1927E 01
1075.00 0.9757E 01 3600.00 0.1909E 01
1100.00 0.9460E 01 3625.00 0.1891E 01
1125.00 0.9179E 01 3650.00 0.1873E 01
1150.00 0.8913E 01 3675.00 0.1856E 01
1175.00 0.8660E 01 3700.00 0.1839E 01
1200.00 0.8417E 01 3725.00 0.1822E 01
1225.00 0.8187E 01 3750.00 0.1805E 01
1250.00 0.7967E 01 3775.00 0.1789E 01
1275.00 0.7757E 01 3800.00 0.1773E 01
1300.00 0.7557E 01 3825.00 0.1757E 01
1325.00 0.7366E 01 3850.00 0.1741E 01
1350.00 0.7183E 01 3875.00 0.1726E 01
1375.00 0.7006E 01 3900.00 0.1711E 01
1400.00 0.6836E 01 3925.00 0.1696E 01
1425.00 0.6674E 01 3950.00 0.1681E 01
1450.00 0.6518E 01 3975.00 0.1667E 01
1475.00 0.6369E 01 4000.00 0.1653E 01
1500.00 0.6226E 01 4025.00 0.1639E 01
1525.00 0.6089E 01 4050.00 0.1625E 01
1550.00 0.5956E 01 4075.00 0.1611E 01
1575.00 0.5828E 01 4100.00 0.1598E 01
1600.00 0.5705E 01 4125.00 0.1585E 01
1625.00 0.5587E 01 4150.00 0.1572E 01
1650.00 0.5472E 01 4175.00 0.1559E 01
1675.00 0.5362E 01 4200.00 0.1546E 01
1700.00 0.5256E 01 4225.00 0.1534E 01
1725.00 0.5154E 01 4250.00 0.1521E 01
1750.00 0.5055E 01 4275.00 0.1509E 01
1775.00 0.4959E 01 4300.00 0.1497E 01
1800.00 0.4866E 01 4325.00 0.1485E 01
1825.00 0.4777E 01 4350.00 0.1474E 01
1850.00 0.4689E 01 4375.00 0.1462E 01
1875.00 0.4605E 01 4400.00 0.1451E 01
1900.00 0.4523E 01 4425.00 0.1439E 01
1925.00 0.4444E 01 4450.00 0.1428E 01
1950.00 0.4367E 01 4475.00 0.1418E 01
1975.00 0.4292E 01 4500.00 0.1407E 01
2000.00 0.4219E 01 4525.00 0.1396E 01
2025.00 0.4148E 01 4550.00 0.1386E 01
2050.00 0.4080E 01 4575.00 0.1375E 01
2075.00 0.4013E 01 4600.00 0.1365E 01
2100.00 0.3948E 01 4625.00 0.1355E 01
2125.00 0.3885E 01 4650.00 0.1345E 01
2150.00 0.3824E 01 4675.00 0.1335E 01
2175.00 0.3764E 01 4700.00 0.1326E 01
2200.00 0.3706E 01 4725.00 0.1316E 01
2225.00 0.3649E 01 4750.00 0.1306E 01
2250.00 0.3594E 01 4775.00 0.1297E 01
2275.00 0.3541E 01 4800.00 0.1288E 01
2300.00 0.3489E 01 4825.00 0.1279E 01
2325.00 0.3438E 01 4850.00 0.1270E 01
2350.00 0.3388E 01 4875.00 0.1261E 01
2375.00 0.3340E 01 4900.00 0.1252E 01
2400.00 0.3293E 01 4925.00 0.1243E 01
2425.00 0.3247E 01 4950.00 0.1235E 01
2450.00 0.3202E 01 4975.00 0.1226E 01
2475.00 0.3158E 01 5000.00 0.1218E 01
2500.00 0.3115E 01
AERSCREEN MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY
3 hour,8 hour,and 24 hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1 hour concentration as referenced in
SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES,REVISED Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA 454/R 92 019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_permit.htm
under Screening Guidance
MAXIMUM SCALED SCALED SCALED SCALED
1 HOUR 3 HOUR 8 HOUR 24 HOUR ANNUAL
CALCULATION CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC
PROCEDURE (ug/m3)ug/m3)ug/m3)ug/m3)ug/m3)
FLAT TERRAIN 1.572 1.572 1.572 1.572 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 149.00 meters
IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 1.214 1.214 1.214 1.214 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
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
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.
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
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 part B 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 EPA s 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
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).
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.
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.
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.
SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Mobil: (
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email:
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 12 October 2022
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. Focus on wastewater treatment.
Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years of 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
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 12 October 2022
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:
Rosenfeld P. E., Spaeth K., Hallman R., Bressler R., Smith, G., (2022) Cancer Risk and Diesel Exhaust Exposure
Among Railroad Workers. Water Air Soil Pollution. 233, 171.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 12 October 2022
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.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 12 October 2022
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.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 12 October 2022
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
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 E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 12 October 2022
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 12 October 2022
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.
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.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 12 October 2022
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered
Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
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 Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino
Billy Wildrick, Plaintiff vs. BNSF Railway Company
Case No. CIVDS1711810
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-17-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County, State of Georgia
Richard Hutcherson, Plaintiff vs Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2022
In the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
Millard Clark, Plaintiff vs. Dixie Carriers, Inc. et al.
Case No. 2020-03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-15-2022
In The Circuit Court of Livingston County, State of Missouri, Circuit Civil Division
Shirley Ralls, Plaintiff vs. Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad
Case No. 18-LV-CC0020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jonny C. Daniels, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. 20-CA-5502
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-1-2022
In The Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri
Kieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. al.
Case No. 19SL-CC03191
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-25-2022
In The Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Florida Civil Division
Jeffery S. Lamotte, Plaintiff vs. CSX Transportation Inc.
Case No. NO. 20-CA-0049
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-22-2022
In State of Minnesota District Court, County of St. Louis Sixth Judicial District
Greg Bean, Plaintiff vs. Soo Line Railroad Company
Case No. 69-DU-CV-21-760
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17-2022
In United States District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma, Washington
John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Case No. 3:21-cv-05288-RJB
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-11-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 12 October 2022
In Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon Illinois
Rocky Bennyhoff Plaintiff vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
In Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County Ohio
Joe Briggins Plaintiff vs. CSX
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2022
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern
George LaFazia vs. BNSF Railway Company.
Case No. BCV-19-103087
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-17-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Bobby Earles vs. Penn Central et. al.
Case No. 2020-L-000550
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-16-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of Florida
Albert Hartman Plaintiff vs. Illinois Central
Case No. 2:20-cv-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
In the Circuit Court of the 4th Judicial Circuit, in and For Duval County, Florida
Barbara Steele vs. CSX Transportation
Case No.16-219-Ca-008796
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-15-2022
In United States District Court Easter District of New York
Romano et al. vs. Northrup Grumman Corporation
Case No. 16-cv-5760
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-10-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Linda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Smith vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No. 2019 L 003426
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-24-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Jan Holeman vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 000675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-18-2022
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne B. Garrett vs. Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-091232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 12 October 2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Ruepke vs. BNSF
Case No. 2019 L 007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-5-2021
In the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska
Steven Gillett vs. BNSF
Case No. 4:20-cv-03120
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone County
James Eadus vs. Soo Line Railroad and BNSF
Case No. DV 19-1056
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois
Martha Custer et al.cvs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc.
Case No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-14-2021
Trial October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a
AMTRAK,
Case No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois
Theresa Romcoe vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail
Case 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. vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.
Case No. 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 vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.
Case No. 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
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 11 of 12 October 2022
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
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division
M/T Carla Maersk 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. 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. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado
Bells et al. Plaintiffs 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., Plaintifs 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 No. 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 12 of 12 October 2022
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. 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 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 No. 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2009
EXHIBIT B
l
ROB BONTA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and
Mitigation Measures to Comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act
Letter 1 -
Exhibit B
Table of Contents
I.Background .......................................................................................................................... 1
II.Proactive Planning: General Plans, Local Ordinances, and Good Neighbor Policies ......... 3
III.Community Engagement ..................................................................................................... 4
IV.Warehouse Siting and Design Considerations ..................................................................... 5
V.Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and Mitigation ................................ 7
VI.Noise Impacts Analysis and Mitigation ............................................................................. 10
VII.Traffic Impacts Analysis and Mitigation ........................................................................... 11
VIII.Other Significant Environmental Impacts Analysis and Mitigation .................................. 12
IX.Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 13
Updated September 2022
1
In carrying out its duty to enforce laws across California, the California Attorney
General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau)1 regularly reviews proposed warehouse
projects for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other laws.
When necessary, the Bureau submits comment letters to lead agencies regarding warehouse
projects, and in rare cases the Bureau has filed litigation to enforce CEQA.2 This document
builds upon the Bureau’s work on warehouse projects, collecting information gained from the
Bureau’s review of hundreds of warehouse projects across the state.3 It is meant to help lead
agencies pursue CEQA compliance and promote environmentally-just development as they
confront warehouse project proposals.4 While CEQA analysis is necessarily project-specific,
this document provides information on feasible best practices and mitigation measures, nearly all
of which have been adapted from actual warehouse projects in California.
I.Background
In recent years, the proliferation of e-commerce and rising consumer expectations of
rapid shipping have contributed to a boom in warehouse development.5 California, with its
ports, population centers, and transportation network, has found itself at the center of this trend.
In 2020, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland collectively accounted for over
34% of all United States international container trade.6 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach alone generate about 35,000 container truck trips every day.7 Accordingly, the South
Coast Air Basin now contains approximately 3,000 warehouses of over 100,000 square feet each,
with a total warehouse capacity of approximately 700 million square feet, an increase of 20
percent over the last five years.8 This trend has only accelerated, with e-commerce growing to
1 https://oag.ca.gov/environment/justice.
2 https://oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa; People of the State of California v. City of Fontana
Super. Ct. San Bernardino County, No. CIVSB2121829); South Central Neighbors United et al.
v. City of Fresno et al. (Super. Ct. Fresno County, No. 18CECG00690).
3 This September 2022 version revises and replaces the prior March 2021 version of this
document.
4 Anyone reviewing this document to determine CEQA compliance responsibilities should
consult their own attorney for legal advice.
5 As used in this document, “warehouse” or “logistics facility” is defined as a facility consisting
of one or more buildings that stores cargo, goods, or products on a short- or long-term basis for
later distribution to businesses and/or retail customers.
6 Data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Container TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units)
2020), https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Container-TEU/x3fb-aeda/ (Ports of Los Angeles, Long
Beach, and Oakland combined for 14.157 million TEUs, 34% of 41.24 million TEUs total
nationwide) (last accessed September 18, 2022).
7 U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Operations Support –
Port Peak Pricing Program Evaluation (2020), available at
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09014/sect2.htm (last accessed September 18,
2022).
8 South Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist., Final Socioeconomic Assessment for Proposed Rule 2305 –
Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions
WAIRE) Program and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, at 7-8, 41 (May 2021).
L1B-1
Updated September 2022
2
13% of all retail sales and 2021 being a second consecutive record year for new warehouse space
leased.9 The latest data and forecasts predict that the next wave of warehouse development will
be in the Central Valley.10
When done properly, these activities can contribute to the economy and consumer
welfare. However, imprudent warehouse development can harm local communities and the
environment. Among other pollutants, diesel trucks visiting warehouses emit nitrogen oxide
NOx)—a primary precursor to smog formation and a significant factor in the development of
respiratory problems like asthma, bronchitis, and lung irritation—and diesel particulate matter (a
subset of fine particular matter that is smaller than 2.5 micrometers)—a contributor to cancer,
heart disease, respiratory illnesses, and premature death.11 Trucks and on-site loading activities
can also be loud, bringing disruptive noise levels during 24/7 operation that can cause hearing
damage after prolonged exposure.12 The hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of daily truck and
passenger car trips that warehouses generate contribute to traffic jams, deterioration of road
surfaces, and traffic accidents.
These environmental impacts also tend to be concentrated in neighborhoods already
suffering from disproportionate health impacts and systemic vulnerability. For example, a
comprehensive study by the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that
communities located near large warehouses scored far higher on California’s environmental
justice screening tool, which measures overall pollution and demographic vulnerability.13 That
9 U.S. Census Bureau News, Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales 4th Quarter 2021 (February 22,
2022), https://www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf (last accessed
September 18, 2022); CBRE Research, 2022 North America Industrial Big Box Report: Review
and Outlook, at 2-3 (March 2022), available at https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/2022-
north-america-industrial-big-box#download-report (last accessed September 18, 2022).
10 CBRE Research, supra note 9, at 4, 36; New York Times, Warehouses Are Headed to the
Central Valley, Too (Jul. 22, 2020), available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/us/coronavirus-ca-warehouse-workers.html.
11 California Air Resources Board, Nitrogen Dioxide & Health,
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health (last accessed September 18,
2022) (NOx); California Air Resources Board, Summary: Diesel Particular Matter Health
Impacts, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/summary-diesel-particulate-matter-health-impacts
last accessed September 18, 2022); Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and
American Lung Association of California, Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust,
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf (last accessed
September 18, 2022) (DPM).
12 Noise Sources and Their Effects,
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm (last accessed
September 18, 2022) (a diesel truck moving 40 miles per hour, 50 feet away, produces 84
decibels of sound).
13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Final Socioeconomic Assessment for
Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to
Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305” (May
2021), at 4-5.
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
3
study concluded that, compared to the South Coast Air Basin averages, communities in the South
Coast Air Basin near large warehouses had a substantially higher proportion of people of color;
were exposed to more diesel particulate matter; had higher rates of asthma, cardiovascular
disease, and low birth weights; and had higher poverty and unemployment rates.14 Each area has
its own unique history, but many of these impacts and vulnerabilities reflect historic redlining
practices in these communities, which devalued land and concentrated poverty, racial outgroups,
and pollution into designated areas.15
II.Proactive Planning: General Plans, Local Ordinances, and Good Neighbor Policies
To systematically guide warehouse development, we encourage local governing bodies to
proactively plan for logistics projects in their jurisdictions. Proactive planning allows
jurisdictions to prevent land use conflicts before they materialize and direct sustainable
development. Benefits also include providing a predictable business environment, protecting
residents from environmental harm, and setting consistent expectations jurisdiction-wide.
Proactive planning can take many forms. Land use designation and zoning decisions
should channel development into appropriate areas. For example, establishing industrial districts
near major highway and rail corridors but away from sensitive receptors 16 can help attract
investment while avoiding conflicts between warehouse facilities and residential communities.
Transition zones with lighter industrial and commercial land uses may also help minimize
conflicts between residential and industrial uses.
In addition, general plan policies, local ordinances, and good neighbor policies should set
minimum standards for logistics projects. General plan policies can be incorporated into existing
economic development, land use, circulation, or other related general plan elements. Many
jurisdictions alternatively choose to consolidate policies in a separate environmental justice
element. Adopting general plan policies to guide warehouse development may also help
14 Id. at 5-7.
15 Beginning in the 1930s, federal housing policy directed investment away from Black,
immigrant, and working-class communities by color-coding neighborhoods according to the
purported “riskiness” of loaning to their residents. In California cities where such “redlining”
maps were drawn, nearly all of the communities where warehouses are now concentrated were
formerly coded “red,” signifying the least desirable areas where investment was to be avoided.
See University of Richmond Digital Scholarship Lab, Mapping Inequality,
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/33.748/-118.272&city=los-angeles-ca (Los
Angeles), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=13/32.685/-117.132&city=san-
diego-ca (San Diego), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=11/37.81/-
122.38&city=oakland-ca (Oakland),
https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=13/37.956/-121.326&city=stockton-ca
Stockton), https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=12/36.751/-119.86&city=fresno-
ca (Fresno) (all last accessed September 18, 2022).
16 In this document, “sensitive receptors” refers to residences, schools, public recreation
facilities, health care facilities, places of worship, daycare facilities, community centers, or
incarceration facilities.
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
4
jurisdictions comply with their obligations under SB 1000, which requires local government
general plans to identify objectives and policies to reduce health risks in disadvantaged
communities, promote civil engagement in the public decision making process, and prioritize
improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.17
Local ordinances and good neighbor policies that set development standards for all
warehouses in the jurisdiction are a critical and increasingly common tool that serve several
goals. When well-designed, these ordinances direct investment to local improvements, provide
predictability for developers, conserve government resources by streamlining project review
processes, and reduce the environmental impacts of industrial development. While many
jurisdictions have adopted warehouse-specific development standards, an ordinance in the City
of Fontana provides an example to review and build upon.18 Good neighbor policies in
Riverside County and by the Western Riverside Council of Government include additional
measures worth consideration.19
The Bureau encourages jurisdictions to adopt their own local ordinances that combine the
strongest policies from those models with measures discussed in the remainder of this document.
III.Community Engagement
Early and consistent community engagement is central to establishing good relationships
between communities, lead agencies, and warehouse developers and tenants. Robust community
engagement can give lead agencies access to community residents’ on-the-ground knowledge
and information about their concerns, build community support for projects, and develop creative
solutions to ensure new logistics facilities are mutually beneficial. Examples of best practices
for community engagement include:
Holding a series of community meetings at times and locations convenient to
members of the affected community and incorporating suggestions into the
project design.
Posting information in hard copy in public gathering spaces and on a website
about the project. The information should include a complete, accurate project
description, maps and drawings of the project design, and information about how
the public can provide input and be involved in the project approval process. The
17 For more information about SB 1000, see https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000.
18 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-
docs/Final%20Signed%20Fontana%20Ordinance.pdf (last accessed September 18, 2022).
19 For example, the Riverside County policy requires community benefits agreements and
supplemental funding contributions toward additional pollution offsets, and the Western
Riverside Council of Governments policy sets a minimum buffer zone of 300 meters between
warehouses and sensitive receptors. https://www.rivcocob.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/Good-Neighbor-Policy-F-3-Final-Adopted.pdf (last accessed
September 18, 2022) (Riverside County);
http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/318/Good-Neighbor-Guidelines-for-Siting-
Warehouse-Distribution-Facilities-PDF?bidId= (last accessed September 18, 2022) (Western
Riverside Council of Governments).
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
5
information should be in a format that is easy to navigate and understand for
members of the affected community.
Providing notice by mail to residents and schools within a certain radius of the
project and along transportation corridors to be used by vehicles visiting the
project, and by posting a prominent sign on the project site. The notice should
include a brief project description and directions for accessing complete
information about the project and for providing input on the project.
Providing translation or interpretation in residents’ native language, where
appropriate.
For public meetings broadcast online or otherwise held remotely, providing for
access and public comment by telephone and supplying instructions for access
and public comment with ample lead time prior to the meeting.
Partnering with local community-based organizations to solicit feedback, leverage
local networks, co-host meetings, and build support.
Considering adoption of a community benefits agreement, negotiated with input
from affected residents and businesses, by which the developer provides benefits
to the affected community.
Creating a community advisory board made up of local residents to review and
provide feedback on project proposals in early planning stages.
Identifying a person to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction
activity and operations, and providing contact information for the community
liaison to the surrounding community.
Requiring signage in public view at warehouse facilities with contact information
for a local designated representative for the facility operator who can receive
community complaints, and requiring any complaints to be answered by the
facility operator within 48 hours of receipt.
IV.Warehouse Siting and Design Considerations
The most important consideration when planning a logistics facility is its location.
Warehouses located in residential neighborhoods or near sensitive receptors expose community
residents and those using or visiting sensitive receptor sites to the air pollution, noise, traffic, and
other environmental impacts they generate. Therefore, placing facilities away from sensitive
receptors significantly reduces their environmental and quality of life harms on local
communities. The suggested best practices for siting and design of warehouse facilities does not
relieve lead agencies’ responsibility under CEQA to conduct a project-specific analysis of the
project’s impacts and evaluation of feasible mitigation measures and alternatives; lead agencies’
incorporation of the best practices must be part of the impact, mitigation and alternatives
analyses to meet the requirements of CEQA. Examples of best practices when siting and
designing warehouse facilities include:
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
6
Per California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance, siting warehouse facilities
so that their property lines are at least 1,000 feet from the property lines of the
nearest sensitive receptors.20
Providing adequate amounts of on-site parking to prevent trucks and other
vehicles from parking or idling on public streets and to reduce demand for off-site
truck yards.
Establishing setbacks from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor to
warehouse dock doors, loading areas, and truck drive aisles, and locating
warehouse dock doors, loading areas, and truck drive aisles on the opposite side
of the building from the nearest sensitive receptors—e.g., placing dock doors on
the north side of the facility if sensitive receptors are near the south side of the
facility.
Placing facility entry and exit points from the public street away from sensitive
receptors—e.g., placing these points on the north side of the facility if sensitive
receptors are adjacent to the south side of the facility.
Ensuring heavy duty trucks abide by the on-site circulation plans by constructing
physical barriers to block those trucks from using areas of the project site
restricted to light duty vehicles or emergency vehicles only.
Preventing truck queuing spillover onto surrounding streets by positioning entry
gates after a minimum of 140 feet of space for queuing, and increasing the
distance by 70 feet for every 20 loading docks beyond 50 docks.
Locating facility entry and exit points on streets of higher commercial
classification that are designed to accommodate heavy duty truck usage.
Screening the warehouse site perimeter and onsite areas with significant truck
traffic (e.g., dock doors and drive aisles) by creating physical, structural, and/or
vegetative buffers that prevent or substantially reduce pollutant and noise
dispersion from the facility to sensitive receptors.
Planting exclusively 36-inch box evergreen trees to ensure faster maturity and
four-season foliage.
Requiring all property owners and successors in interest to maintain onsite trees
and vegetation for the duration of ownership, including replacing any dead or
unhealthy trees and vegetation.
Posting signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public
street for trucks and service vehicles.
Including signs and drive aisle pavement markings that clearly identify onsite
circulation patterns to minimize unnecessary onsite vehicle travel.
Posting signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be
conducted within designated on-site areas and not within the surrounding
community or public streets.
20 CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005),
at ES-1. CARB staff has released draft updates to this siting and design guidance which suggests
a greater distance may be warranted in some scenarios. CARB, Concept Paper for the Freight
Handbook (December 2019), available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
03/2019.12.12%20-%20Concept%20Paper%20for%20the%20Freight%20Handbook_1.pdf (last
accessed September 18, 2022).
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
7
V.Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis and Mitigation
Emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases are often among the most substantial
environmental impacts from new warehouse facilities. CEQA compliance demands a proper
accounting of the full air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of logistics facilities and adoption
of all feasible mitigation of significant impacts. Although efforts by CARB and other authorities
to regulate the heavy-duty truck and off-road diesel fleets have made excellent progress in
reducing the air quality impacts of logistics facilities, the opportunity remains for local
jurisdictions to further mitigate these impacts at the project level. Lead agencies and developers
should also consider designing projects with their long-term viability in mind. Constructing the
necessary infrastructure to prepare for the zero-emission future of goods movement not only
reduces a facility’s emissions and local impact now, but it can also save money as demand for
zero-emission infrastructure grows. In planning new logistics facilities, the Bureau strongly
encourages developers to consider the local, statewide, and global impacts of their projects’
emissions.
Examples of best practices when studying air quality and greenhouse gas impacts
include:
Fully analyzing all reasonably foreseeable project impacts, including cumulative
impacts. In general, new warehouse developments are not ministerial under
CEQA because they involve public officials’ personal judgment as to the wisdom
or manner of carrying out the project, even when warehouses are permitted by a
site’s applicable zoning and/or general plan land use designation.21
When analyzing cumulative impacts, thoroughly considering the project’s
incremental impact in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, even if the project’s individual impacts alone do not exceed the
applicable significance thresholds.
Preparing a quantitative air quality study in accordance with local air district
guidelines.
Preparing a quantitative health risk assessment in accordance with California
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and local air district
guidelines.
Refraining from labeling compliance with CARB or air district regulations as a
mitigation measure—compliance with applicable regulations is required
regardless of CEQA.
Disclosing air pollution from the entire expected length of truck trips. CEQA
requires full public disclosure of a project’s anticipated truck trips, which entails
calculating truck trip length based on likely truck trip destinations, rather than the
distance from the facility to the edge of the air basin, local jurisdiction, or other
truncated endpoint. All air pollution associated with the project must be
considered, regardless of where those impacts occur.
21 CEQA Guidelines § 15369.
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
8
Accounting for all reasonably foreseeable greenhouse gas emissions from the
project, without discounting projected emissions based on participation in
California’s Cap-and-Trade Program.
Examples of measures to mitigate air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from
construction are below. To ensure mitigation measures are enforceable and effective, they
should be imposed as permit conditions on the project where applicable.
Requiring off-road construction equipment to be hybrid electric-diesel or zero-
emission, where available, and all diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment
to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including
this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with
successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant
construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction
activities.
Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position
for more than 10 hours per day.
Using electric-powered hand tools, forklifts, and pressure washers, and providing
electrical hook ups to the power grid rather than use of diesel-fueled generators to
supply their power.
Designating an area in the construction site where electric-powered construction
vehicles and equipment can charge.
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 three 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.
Examples of measures to mitigate air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from operation
include:
Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles engaged in drayage 22 to or from the project site
to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
22 “Drayage” refers generally to transport of cargo to or from a seaport or intermodal railyard.
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
9
Requiring all on-site motorized operational equipment, such as forklifts and yard
trucks, to be zero-emission with the necessary charging or fueling 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 three 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 local air district, and the building manager.
Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical
generation capacity that is equal to or greater than the building’s projected energy
needs, including all electrical chargers.
Designing all project building roofs to accommodate the maximum future
coverage of solar panels and installing the maximum solar power generation
capacity feasible.
Constructing zero-emission truck charging/fueling stations proportional to the
number of dock doors at the project.
Running conduit to designated locations for future electric truck charging stations.
Unless the owner of the facility records a covenant on the title of the underlying
property ensuring that the property cannot be used to provide refrigerated
warehouse space, constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration
units at every dock door and requiring truck operators with transport refrigeration
units to use the electric plugs when at loading docks.
Oversizing electrical rooms by 25 percent or providing a secondary electrical
room to accommodate future expansion of electric vehicle charging capability.
Constructing and maintaining electric light-duty vehicle charging stations
proportional to the number of employee parking spaces (for example, requiring at
least 10% of all employee parking spaces to be equipped with electric vehicle
charging stations of at least Level 2 charging performance)
Running conduit to an additional proportion of employee parking spaces for a
future increase in the number of electric light-duty charging stations.
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 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.
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
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
10
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.
Designing to LEED green building certification 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 who own, operate, or hire
trucking carriers with more than 100 trucks 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.
VI. Noise Impacts Analysis and Mitigation
The noise associated with logistics facilities can be among their most intrusive impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors. Various sources, such as unloading activity, diesel truck movement,
and rooftop air conditioning units, can contribute substantial noise pollution. These impacts are
exacerbated by logistics facilities’ typical 24-hour, seven-days-per-week operation. Construction
noise is often even greater than operational noise, so if a project site is near sensitive receptors,
developers and lead agencies should adopt measures to reduce the noise generated by both
construction and operation activities.
Examples of best practices when studying noise impacts include:
Preparing a noise impact analysis that considers all reasonably foreseeable project
noise impacts, including to nearby sensitive receptors. All reasonably foreseeable
project noise impacts encompasses noise from both construction and operations,
including stationary, on-site, and off-site noise sources.
Adopting a lower significance threshold for incremental noise increases when
baseline noise already exceeds total noise significance thresholds, to account for
the cumulative impact of additional noise and the fact that, as noise moves up the
decibel scale, each decibel increase is a progressively greater increase in sound
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
11
pressure than the last. For example, 70 dBA is ten times more sound pressure
than 60 dBA.
Disclosing and considering the significance of short-term noise levels associated
with all aspects of project operation (i.e. both on-site noise generation and off-site
truck noise). Considering only average noise levels may mask noise impacts
sensitive receptors would consider significant—for example, the repeated but
short-lived passing of individual trucks or loading activities at night.
Examples of measures to mitigate noise impacts include:
Constructing physical, structural, or vegetative noise barriers on and/or off the
project site.
Planning and enforcing truck routes that avoid passing sensitive receptors.
Locating or parking all stationary construction equipment as far from sensitive
receptors as possible, and directing emitted noise away from sensitive receptors.
Verifying that construction equipment has properly operating and maintained
mufflers.
Requiring all combustion-powered construction equipment to be surrounded by a
noise protection barrier
Limiting operation hours to daytime hours on weekdays.
Paving roads where truck traffic is anticipated with low noise asphalt.
Orienting any public address systems onsite away from sensitive receptors and
setting system volume at a level not readily audible past the property line.
VII.Traffic Impacts Analysis and Mitigation
Warehouse facilities inevitably bring truck and passenger car traffic. Truck traffic can
present substantial safety issues. Collisions with heavy-duty trucks are especially dangerous for
passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. These concerns can be even greater if
truck traffic passes through residential areas, school zones, or other places where pedestrians are
common and extra caution is warranted.
Examples of measures to mitigate traffic impacts include:
Designing, clearly marking, and enforcing truck routes that keep trucks out of
residential neighborhoods and away from other sensitive receptors.
Installing signs in residential areas noting that truck and employee parking is
prohibited.
Requiring preparation and approval of a truck routing plan describing the
facility’s hours of operation, types of items to be stored, and truck routing to and
from the facility to designated truck routes that avoids passing sensitive receptors.
The plan should include measures for preventing truck queuing, circling,
stopping, and parking on public streets, such as signage, pavement markings, and
queuing analysis and enforcement. The plan should hold facility operators
responsible for violations of the truck routing plan, and a revised plan should be
required from any new tenant that occupies the property before a business license
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
12
is issued. The approving agency should retain discretion to determine if changes
to the plan are necessary, including any additional measures to alleviate truck
routing and parking issues that may arise during the life of the facility.
Constructing new or improved transit stops, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and
crosswalks, with special attention to ensuring safe routes to schools.
Consulting with the local public transit agency and securing increased public
transit service to the project area.
Designating areas for employee pickup and drop-off.
Implementing traffic control and safety measures, such as speed bumps, speed
limits, or new traffic signs or signals.
Placing facility entry and exit points on major streets that do not have adjacent
sensitive receptors.
Restricting the turns trucks can make entering and exiting the facility to route
trucks away from sensitive receptors.
Constructing roadway improvements to improve traffic flow.
Preparing a construction traffic control plan prior to grading, detailing the
locations of equipment staging areas, material stockpiles, proposed road closures,
and hours of construction operations, and designing the plan to minimize impacts
to roads frequented by passenger cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-truck
traffic.
VIII.Other Significant Environmental Impacts Analysis and Mitigation
Warehouse projects may result in significant environmental impacts to other resources,
such as to aesthetics, cultural resources, energy, geology, or hazardous materials. All significant
adverse environmental impacts must be evaluated, disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible
under CEQA. Examples of best practices and mitigation measures to reduce environmental
impacts that do not fall under any of the above categories include:
Appointing a compliance officer who is responsible for implementing all
mitigation measures, and providing contact information for the compliance officer
to the lead agency, to be updated annually.
Creating a fund to mitigate impacts on affected residents, schools, places of
worship, and other community institutions by retrofitting their property. For
example, retaining a contractor to retrofit/install HVAC and/or air filtration
systems, doors, dual-paned windows, and sound- and vibration-deadening
insulation and curtains.
Sweeping surrounding streets on a daily basis during construction to remove any
construction-related debris and dirt.
Directing all lighting at the facility into the interior of the site.
Using full cut-off light shields and/or anti-glare lighting.
Requiring submission of a property maintenance program for agency review and
approval providing for the regular maintenance of all building structures,
landscaping, and paved surfaces.
Using cool pavement to reduce heat island effects.
L1B-1
Cont.
Updated September 2022
13
Planting trees in parking areas to provide at least 35% shade cover of parking
areas within fifteen years to reduce heat island impacts.
Using light colored roofing materials with a solar reflective index of 78 or greater.
Including on-site amenities, such as a truck operator lounge with restrooms,
vending machines, and air conditioning, to reduce the need for truck operators to
idle or travel offsite.
Designing skylights to provide natural light to interior worker areas.
Installing climate control and air filtration in the warehouse facility to promote
worker well-being.
IX.Conclusion
California’s world-class economy, ports, and transportation network position it at the
center of the e-commerce and logistics industry boom. At the same time, California is a global
leader in environmental protection and environmentally just development. The guidance in this
document furthers these dual strengths, ensuring that all can access the benefits of economic
development. The Bureau will continue to monitor proposed projects for compliance with
CEQA and other laws. Lead agencies, developers, community advocates, and other interested
parties should feel free to reach out to us as they consider how to guide warehouse development
in their area.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Environmental Justice Bureau at ej@doj.ca.gov if
you have any questions.
L1B-1
Cont.
EXHIBIT C
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Oscar Romero, Project Planner
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910 24 February 2023
RE: Shinohara Business Center
Dear Mr. Romero,
I write to comment on the revised and recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Shinohara Business Center Project,
which I understand would add a 43-foot-tall warehouse and an office building with
173,432 sf of floor space on 9.72 acres at 517 Shinohara Lane (City of Chula Vista 2023).
In support of my comments, I reviewed a revised biological resources report prepared by
Dudek (2022), and upon which the IS/MND relies upon for its conclusion of less than
significant impacts to biological resources with mitigation. My qualifications for
preparing expert comments were summarized in my letter of 22 September 2022
SECOND SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from
California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for a
second time on 18 February 2023. (Her first survey visit was completed on 14
September 2022.) Noriko surveyed for 2.98 hours from 07:05 to 10:15 hours. She
repeated the methods of her first survey. Conditions were partly cloudy with 0 5 MPH
wind from the south and temperatures ranged 45 61° F. The proposed project site is on
a slope with small hills covered in annual grasses and short-statured shrubs (Photos 1, 2
and 3).
During her second survey of the project site, Noriko saw a nest of Anna’s hummingbird
immediately adjacent to the site (Photo 4) and 15 m distant from the site a red-tailed
hawk carrying sticks to build its own nest (Photo 5). The avian breeding season is
underway, and the project site supports breeding through provision of forage, nest
materials, and most likely with nest substrate as well. Noriko also saw western gulls
Photos 6 and 7), California gulls (Photo 8), double-crested cormorants (Photo 9),
white-crowned sparrows (Photos 10 and 11), Cassin’s kingbird (Photo 12), Anna’s
hummingbird (Photo 13) and others. Noriko detected 29 species of vertebrate wildlife at
or near the site during her survey of 18 February 2023, and combined with her survey
findings of 14 September 2022, she detected 33 species of vertebrate wildlife, 9 (27.3%)
of which were special-status species (Table 1). In our experience, such a high percentage
of special-status species in one place is unusual. It indicates a high level of endemism.
Letter 1 -
Exhibit C
L1C-1
L1C-2
2
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and
accurately reported.
Photos 1 and 2. Views of the site from the SE corner (top) and from the NW corner
bottom), 18 February 20223.
L1C-2
Cont.
L1C-3
3
Photo 3. A Botta’s pocket gopher peers out from its burrow system amid California
buckwheat, lupine, shining pepperweed, filaree and other plants.
Photo 4.
Anna’s
humming-
bird nest
on 18
February
2023.
L1C-3
Cont.
4
Photo 5. A red-tailed hawk carries nest material to its nest, 18 February 2023.
Photo 6. Western gulls select to flyover the project site, 18 February 2023.
L1C-3
Cont.
5
Photos 7 and 8. Western gull (top) and California gull (bottom), fly over the site, 18
February 2023. Both are US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern .
L1C-3
Cont.
6
Photo 9. Double-crested
cormorants fly over the site, 18
February 2023.
Photos 10 and 11. Female
above) and male (right) white-
crowned sparrows on the project
site, 18 February 2023.
L1C-3
Cont.
7
Photos 12 and 13. Cassin’s kingbird next to the site (left) and Anna’s hummingbird
right) at the project site, 18 February 2023. Cassin’s kingbird was also seen on site.
On her second survey visit, Noriko detected 12 (57%) more species of vertebrate wildlife
than she had detected on her first survey visit, including 5 (56%) more special-status
species than she had on her first survey (Table 1). During her first survey, Noriko
detected 5 species of vertebrate wildlife that she did not see again during her second
survey. These survey findings together support my comments of 22 September 2022
that survey effort largely determines the list of species to be detected at a project site,
and that a single reconnaissance-level survey cannot possibly characterize the wildlife
community of the existing environmental setting. The revised Dudek (2022) report and
the revised IS/MND do not disclose this relationship between survey effort and survey
findings, which is an obvious shortfall of the CEQA review for this project.
As I originally commented, the cumulative number of species’ detections increases with
increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). This pattern
reflects the relative ease of detecting the most conspicuous species early during the
survey, and the increasing difficulty in detecting the rarer and more cryptic of the
species on site. It is therefore essential to survey long enough to have a reasonable
opportunity to detect those species are rarer or more cryptic. Noriko’s second survey
detected wildlife species at a much higher rate than her first survey, and the rate of
cumulative species detections with time into the survey exceeded the upper bound of the
95% confidence interval estimated from 25 sites she and I have surveyed in the south
coastal region since late 2018. The rapid increase in species detections likely reflects the
relatively higher likelihood of species detections on a site that has been managed to
suppress biological resources, but which is located in a region of inherently high species
richness.
L1C-3
Cont.
8
Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.42 hours of survey on 14 September 2022 and 2.98 hours of
survey on 18 February 2023.
Common name Species name Status1 9/14/22 2/18/23 Notes
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X X
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X Nest building just offsite
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC X X Territorial behavior
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC X X Hundreds flew over
California gull Larus californicus
BCC, TWL,
CSD2
X
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL, CSD2 X Flew over
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X Nest building just offsite
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus pacificus BOP X Pellet just offsite, ID uncertain
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X Two just off site
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X Territorial behavior
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X Foraged on site
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X Just off site
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X
Common raven Corvus corax X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X Flock flew over
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC X Off site
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X Just off site
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X Flew over
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana CSD2 X
American robin Turdus migratorius X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X Foraged on site
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X Just off site, singing
California towhee Melozone crissalis X X
L1C-3
Cont.
9
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X
Black-headed grosbeak
Pheucticus
melanocephalus
X
Just off site
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X X Burrows and 1 gopher observed
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X Burrows and 1 squirrel 213 m offsite
1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and
Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and CSD1 and CSD2 = Group 1 and Group 2
species on County of San Diego Sensitive Animal List (County of San Diego 2010).
L1C-3
Cont.
10
Figure 1. Actual (red and
blue circles) and predicted
red and blue lines)
relationships between the
number of vertebrate
wildlife species detected and
the elapsed survey time
based on Noriko
Smallwood’s visual-scan
survey on 14 September
2022 (blue) and on 18
February 2023 (red), and
compared to the 95% CI of
surveys at 25 other sites she
and I completed in the south
coast region. Note that the
relationship would differ if
the survey was based on
another method or during
another season.
In my original comments I applied an analytical bridge between Noriko’s data at the
Shinohara project site and a large, robust data set from my research site in the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area to predict the number of vertebrate species of wildlife that
Noriko would detect after multiple additional surveys throughout a year or longer.
Herein I revise the analytical bridge to reflect the outcome of both of Noriko’s surveys.
On average I detected 17.5 species over the first 5.11 hours of surveys in the Altamont
Pass (5.11 hours to match the number of hours Noriko surveyed at the project site),
which composed 30.7% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a
much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2
of my original comment letter, the 33 species Noriko detected after her 5.11 hours of
survey at the project site likely represented 30.7% 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, she would likely detect 33
0.307=107 species of vertebrate
wildlife at the site. Assuming her ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was
to hold with through the detections of all 107 predicted species, then continued surveys
would eventually detect 29 special-status species of wildlife. According to the evidence,
the project site is much richer in species of wildlife than characterized in Dudek (2022)
and the IS/MND.
How did the IS/MND address the wildlife species inventory and special-
status species occurrence likelihoods at the project site?
The reporting shortfalls remain in the revised report by Dudek (2022). The revised
report persists in denying the public any knowledge of who performed the surveys on 18
January and 23 July 2018, at what times the surveys started, and how long the surveys
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Cumulative
number of
wildlife species detectedY2023 Model prediction r2 =
0.99, loss = 19.
3 95% CI of
visual-scan surveys 2019-
2022 2023
count of species Model prediction r2 =
0.99, loss = 8.
2
2022 count
of species
11
lasted. It would help to know that survey personnel were qualified and that they
committed to a reasonable survey effort on the days they surveyed.
Dudek’s revised report fails to explain why so few species of vertebrate wildlife were
detected as compared to the number of species Noriko Smallwood detected during her
survey from the project’s periphery. In fact, the disparity in the number of species
detected increased after Noriko’s second survey visit on 18 February 2023. Dudek
2022) reports having detected 16 species of vertebrate wildlife during their 4 surveys,
including 3 species that Noriko did not detect. But the species of vertebrate wildlife
detected by Dudek (2022) numbered half the number detected by Noriko, even though
Noriko completed her survey in less than three-fifths of Dudek’s survey time and having
had access to only at the outside portions of three corners of the site. Dudek detected
only 1 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife to Noriko’s 9 special-status species. In
summary, Dudek’s 2018 surveys were not nearly as productive as Noriko’s. The IS/MND
makes misleading use of the wildlife surveys completed on the project site.
The revised IS/MND eliminates the confusion over whether Dudek (2022) detected red -
shouldered hawk or red-tailed hawk. Dudek detected the latter species, red-tailed hawk.
Dudek’s original report accurately stated, “All raptors species are considered special-
status and may use the site for foraging.” Dudek’s revised report attempts to modify the
meaning of the original statement by writing, “All raptors species and their nests are
protected under the California Fish and Game Code, and raptor species may use the site
for foraging.” The protection afforded raptors by CFG Code qualifies raptors as special-
status species, but there is another reason why raptors are special-status species.
Species that are considered rare or sensitive are also regarded as special-status species
under CEQA. Rareness can apply to endemic species or to species that have been
diminished in abundance or geographic extent or to species that are naturally scarce
owing to their position at the top of the food-chain (such as raptors) or to some other
ecological factor. Sensitive can apply to species that respond more adversely than other
species to changes to their environment, often due to susceptibility to pollutants or
pathogens, or in the case of raptors, to the loss or degradation of the more expansive
foraging habitat upon which raptors typically rely.
Dudek’s revised report persists in presenting findings without the context of the survey
methods and survey effort needed to accurately interpret their findings. For example,
Dudek’s revised report adds the statement, “No burrowing owls were observed during
the 2018 or 2021 site visits or the focused burrowing owl survey on January 25, 2018.”
Although ostensibly factual, this finding typifies the outcomes of cursory burrowing owl
surveys, and is the very reason that the CDFW (2012) protocol-level survey guidelines
were developed. According to the CDFW (2012) guidelines, breeding-season surveys are
warranted where burrowing owls have been documented in the area and where ground
squirrels occupy the project site, and especially where the habitat assessment reveals
potential burrowing owl burrows. In the case of this project site, Dudek (2022) reports
that two potential burrowing owl burrows were found; these burrows appear as mapped
point features on Figure 2 of Dudek (2022). Considering that the appropriate breeding-
season surveys have not been completed, it is therefore pseudoscientific and misleading
L1C-5
Cont.
12
of Dudek to report having not seen burrowing owls during Dudek’s winter surveys. The
appropriate surveys need to be completed.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2 of my original comments, the number of wildlife species
detected during a survey is largely a function of survey duration, but the IS/MND
persists in not disclosing survey duration. Documented survey duration contributes
evidence to the veracity of negative findings. As an example, failure to detect peregrine
falcon after a 5-minute survey would not be as supportive of an absence determination
as would having failed to detect the species after 50 hours of survey effort. The IS/MND
needs to inform the public of this essential context of survey effort. Implying the
absences of potentially-occurring special-status species is unsupported by evidence.
Regarding Dudek’s (2022) documented presence of Monarch butterfly – a Candidate
Endangered Species under the federal Endangered Species Act, – Dudek’s revised report
attempts to further downplay this finding by having deleted their observation that
Monarch was nectaring on the project site. A nectaring Monarch, after all, refutes
Dudek’s narrative that Monarchs are entirely reliant on milkweed. Whereas Monarchs
lay their eggs on milkweed, these butterflies rely on many species of flowering plants for
food (https://www.fws.gov/story/spreading-milkweed-not-myths). Even Monarch
caterpillars eat more than just milkweed. Whereas the presence of milkweed would
indicate a higher likelihood of occurrence of Monarch, any given site can provide habitat
to Monarchs with or without milkweed. And the fact is that Dudek found Monarch on
the project site, which by the definition of habitat (Hall et al. 1997) means that the site
supports Monarch habitat.
Dudek’s (2022) revised report continues to falsely imply that over-wintering habitat is
the only Monarch habitat that would be significant. The conservation strategy of the
Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan 2016-2069 says otherwise. According to
this Plan, the strategy is to “Protect and restore overwintering groves, including
development of site-specific grove management plans; and conserve monarch breeding
and migratory habitats in natural lands, urban and industrial, rights -of-way, and
agricultural habitat sectors.” Migratory habitats are no less important to the
conservation of monarchs than are overwintering groves, and the Plan identifies urban
areas as contributive to migratory habitat. The observation of a Monarch on the project
site is evidence that at minimum the site serves as part of a migration route to and from
over-wintering sites. The Monarch observation is significant, and warrants an
appropriate analysis of potential project impacts to Monarch.
In its revised report, Dudek (2022) persists in leaving the public uninformed over
whether California ground squirrels occur on the project site. Dudek (2022) reports
potential” ground squirrel burrows. Dudek (2022) also reports two potential burrowing
owl burrows, but the revised report continues to leave these burrows undescribed. Were
these two potential burrowing owl burrows not constructed by ground squirrels? The
IS/MND needs to reveal the species that constructed these burrows that were
potentially occupied by burrowing owls. Noriko saw ground squirrels near the project
site but not directly on the site, but then again Noriko’s vantage points from the project’s
periphery only allowed her to view about 65% of the project site’s ground surface.
L1C-5
Cont.
13
Ground squirrels might very well inhabit the project site despite efforts to suppress
biological resources there.
Appendix E of Dudek (2022) includes the following inaccuracy, “Protocol surveys for the
species were conducted and no suitable burrows were identified on the site.” In fact,
Dudek (2022) reports having found two potential burrowing owl burrows on the project
site. And in fact, the surveys completed for burrowing owls were not protocol surveys
see below).
Detection Surveys
Despite having had the opportunity to review my comments regarding the CDFW (2012)
survey guidelines and whether Dudek’s surveys met the standards of these guidelines,
Dudek (2022) continues to refer to their burrowing owl surveys as focused surveys that
followed the guidelines of CDFW (2012). Dudek’s surveys, however, failed to achieve the
standards of the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines for burrowing owls. Specific to
burrowing owls, Dudek (2022) fails to summarize qualifications of their biologists
Table 2). Only half the standards of habitat survey were achieved, and breeding-season
surveys were not completed (Table 2). CDFW’s (2012) reporting standards were largely
unmet.
The revised IS/MND concludes, “While burrowing owl has a low potential to occur and
was not detected during site surveys, including the focused burrowing owl survey, if this
species were to occur on-site prior to project activities, impacts to an active nest would
be considered significant, absent mitigation.” This conclusion lacks foundation,
however, because the detection surveys needed to support the conclusion’s premise –
that burrowing owls are absent or unlikely to occur at the site – lack support from the
completion of protocol-level detection surveys. The conclusion is based on a yet-to-be
supportable premise.
A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR so that its analysis of
potential project impacts to burrowing owls is appropriately based on the outcomes of
protocol-level detection surveys that met the standards of CDFW (2012).
Other Biological Impacts
According to the revised IS/MND, “No other special-status wildlife species were
detected during the 2018 or 2021 surveys. The potential for special-status species to
occur in the study area is low due to the disturbed nature of the site…” Noriko’s surveys
at the site refute the IS/MND’s premise that no other special-status species of wildlife
are likely to occur at the project site. At least 9 such species were detected on or adjacent
to the project site. And as shown in Table 2 of my original comment letter, many special-
status species of wildlife have been reported to occurrence databases for locations within
only a few miles of the site. The evidence in the record refutes the IS/MND’s premise.
L1C-5
Cont.
L1C-6
L1C-7
14
Table 1. Assessment of whether burrowing owl surveys achieved the standards in CDFW’s (2012) recommended survey
protocol. Standards are numbered to match those in CDFW (2012).
Standard in CDFG (2012) Assessment of surveys completed
Was the
standard
met?
Minimum qualifications of biologists performing surveys and impact assessments
1) Familiarity with the species and local ecology Dudek (2022) reports very little about the ecology of
burrowing owls, nor what is currently happening to the
species in California.
No
2) Experience conducting habitat assessments and
breeding and non-breeding season surveys
No summary of experience is reported No
3) Familiarity with regulatory statutes, scientific
research and conservation related to burrowing owls
Little characterization of the regulatory framework is
described
No
4) Experience with analyzing impacts on burrowing owls None described No
Habitat assessment
1) Conduct at least 1 visit covering entire site and offsite
buffer to 150 m
Did not survey 150 m buffer No
2) Prior to site visit, compile relevant biological
information on site and surrounding area
CNDDB records were reviewed, but not eBird No
3) Check available sources for occurrence records CNDDB records were reviewed, but not eBird No
4) Identify vegetation cover potentially supporting
burrowing owls on site and vicinity
Vegetation is described, but not with relevance to
burrowing owls
No
5a) Describe project and timeline of activities Project described Yes
5b) Regional setting map showing project location Yes
5c) Detailed map with project footprint, topography,
landscape and potential vegetation-altering activities
Site map provided, plus foundation of the project Yes
5d) Biological setting including location, acreage,
terrain, soils, geography, hydrology, land use and
management history
Location and acreage are described Yes
5e) Analysis of relevant historical information
concerning burrowing owl use or occupancy
None No
5f) Vegetation cover and height typical of temporal and
spatial scales relevant to the assessment
Vaguely No
L1C-7
Cont.
15
Standard in CDFG (2012) Assessment of surveys completed
Was the
standard
met?
5g) Presence of burrowing owl individuals, pairs or sign None seen Yes
5h) Presence of suitable burrows or burrow surrogates Suitable burrows noted on site, but also reported none
seen
Yes/No
Breeding season surveys
Perform 4 surveys separated by at least 3 weeks Not completed No
1 survey between 15 February and 15 April Not completed No
2-3 surveys between 15 April and 15 July Not completed No
1 survey following June 15 Not completed No
Walk transects spaced 7 m to 20 m apart Not completed No
Scan entire viewable area using binoculars at start of
each transect and at 100 m intervals
Not completed No
Record all potential burrow locations determined by
presence of owls or sign
Not completed No
Survey when temperature >20° C (68° F), winds <12
km/hr, and cloud cover <75%
Not completed No
Survey between dawn and 10:00 hours or within 2 hours
before sunset
Not completed No
Identify and discuss any adverse conditions such as
disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site
disturbance
Not completed Yes
Survey several years where activities will be ongoing,
annual or start-and-stop to cover high nest site fidelity
Not completed No
Reporting should include:
1) Survey dates with start and end times and weather
conditions
Yes
2) Qualifications of surveyor(s)None provided No
3) Discussion of how survey timing affected
comprehensiveness and detection probability
None provided No
L1C-7
Cont.
16
Standard in CDFG (2012) Assessment of surveys completed
Was the
standard
met?
4) Description of survey methods including point count
dispersal and duration
No point counts mentioned Partial
5) Description and justification of the area surveyed Yes
6) Numbers of nestlings or juveniles associated with
each pair and whether adults were banded or marked
7) Descriptions of behaviors of burrowing owls observed ---
8) List of possible burrowing owl predators in the area,
including any signs of predation of burrowing owls
No
9) Detailed map showing all burrowing owl locations
and potential or occupied burrows
Map of potential burrows Yes
10) Signed field forms, photos, etc.None No
11) Recent color photos of project site Yes
12)Copies of CNDDB field forms ---
L1C-7
Cont.
17
A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze
potential project impacts to special-status species of wildlife, many of which are
neglected by the revised IS/MND.
HABITAT LOSS
The revised IS/MND fails to address the project’s potential contribution to reduced
numerical capacity of birds, which I predicted in my original comment letter. I had
predicted the project would deny California 274 birds per year, but the revised IS/MND
makes no mention of this potential impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to
prepare an EIR to provide an analysis of the project’s potential diminishment of the
productive capacity of the site to wildlife.
WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
The revised IS/MND fails to address my original comment on the inadequacy of the
City’s analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the
region. The revised version of Dudek (2022) concludes, “There are no wildlife corridors
or habitat linkages on site; therefore, there are no direct impacts to wildlife corridors or
habitat linkages.” The implied premise of this conclusion is that only disruption of the
function of a wildlife corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. This
premise 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 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. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to
appropriately analyze the potential of the project to interfere with wildlife movement in
the region.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
The revised IS/MND addresses the potential impact of wildlife-automobile collision
mortality resulting from project-generated traffic, which is an issue that I raised in my
original comment letter. According to the revised IS/MND, “Because the site has limited
capacity to support wildlife species and no special-status reptiles, amphibians, or
mammals have the potential to occur, no significant impacts to wildlife from traffic
collisions would occur.” However, this analysis is misleading by examining the potential
for impacts solely on the project site. As my comments made clear, wildlife collision
mortality would occur along the roads used by project-generated traffic, many reaches
of which would occur far from the project site.
L1C-7
Cont.
L1C-8
L1C-9
L1C-10
18
Herein, I revise my predicted impact in response to the new estimates of construction
and operational vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the revised IS/MND.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife
The revised IS/MND predicts 50,303 daily VMT, which is an increase from the original
42,012 daily (VMT), following construction VMT of 301,454. The daily VMT projected to
the year would predict an annual VMT of 18,360,595. 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 18,
360,595 annual VMT following construction VMT of 301,454 leads to predictions of 10,
061 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year as part of project operations after 165 wildlife
fatalities caused by construction traffic. A fair argument
can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s potential
impacts to wildlife in the form of collision mortality caused by project-generated traffic
along roads leading to and from the project site. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Repeating
the most
fundamental flaw of the original IS/MND’s analysis of cumulative impacts, the revised
IS/MND’s analysis neglects biological resources. The cumulative impacts analysis does
not even mention wildlife. The second fundamental
flaw of the revised IS/MND’s analysis is its vague reliance on an existing plan
as some form of umbrella mitigation without explaining how the umbrella of the
other plan would cover the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. According to the
revised IS/MND, “Through the project design features, proposed mitigation measures, and
consistency with the General Plan, cumulative impacts are less than significant
with mitigation.” According to CEQA Guideline 15064(h)(3), “When relying on a
plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular
requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’
s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/
MND provides no explanation of how implementing the particular requirements of
the General Plan EIR would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions
to cumulative impacts. A fair argument
can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to provide sufficient analysis of potential
project contributions to cumulative impacts and whether and how such impacts can
be mitigated. L1C-10 Cont.
L1C-11
19
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM BIO-1: Compensatory Uplands Mitigation: “Per the HLIT ordinance, 7.58
acres of impacts to sensitive uplands shall be mitigated at the required mitigation ratios
Table 1).”
The IS/MND’s Table 1 reveals only 4.06 acres would be conserved at a conservation
bank in exchange for the loss of the 7.58 acres of habitat deemed significant in the
IS/MND. However, burrows of California ground squirrel were found on a portion of the
project site mapped as “Disturbed Habitat.” No detection surveys consistent with CDFW
2012) survey guidelines were completed for burrowing owls, so a supportable absence
determination for burrowing owls has not been made. Furthermore, burrowing owls are
often referred to as disturbance-adapted, so Dudek’s definition of “Disturbed Habitat”
would often help to characterize potential burrowing owl habitat. I have personally
discovered and mapped the locations of burrowing owl nest sites and refuge sites on
disturbed soils such as along access roads, berms and in fill soils. In fact, burrowing owl
conservation efforts often involve trenching or piling of soils to attract burrowing owls
to artificial nest boxes (see Smallwood and Morrison 2018). Additionally, many other
special-status species likely make use of the so-called “Disturbed Habitat” that Dudek
2022) mapped. Did the red-tailed hawk fly around the outskirts of the area mapped as
Disturbed Habitat?” Dudek (2022) and the IS/MND falsely imply disturbance as a
barrier to occurrence of special-status species of wildlife. Purchasing credits for 4 acres
at a conservation bank would be grossly insufficient for the take of nearly 10 acres of
habitat desperately needed by many special-status species of wildlife in the region.
Furthermore, most (85%) of the potentially-occurring special-status species in Table 2
are not covered by the MSCP, to which the cited HLIT ordinance applies. Sixty-eight
80%) of these species without MSCP coverage are known to have occurred within 4
miles of the project site, and reconnaissance surveys on the site have detected 4 of them.
The proposed compensatory mitigation therefore fails to offset potential impacts to the
majority of special-status species that potentially occur on the project site. Additional
compensatory mitigation is warranted, and some portion of it should be based on the
outcomes of detection surveys for burrowing owl.
MM BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys
Performing preconstruction take-avoidance surveys would be inappropriate without
first having completed breeding-season detection surveys (CDFW 2012). Both the
habitat assessment and preconstruction surveys do not provide the same likelihood of
detection of burrowing owls as do detection surveys, which is why preconstruction
surveys are supposed to follow breeding-season detection surveys, which themselves are
supposed to follow a habitat assessment that had determined potential exists for
burrowing owls to occur on site.
The final sentence of the revised IS/MND’s (page 55) paragraph on this measure reads,
The development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be informed by
monitoring the burrowing owls.” It is unclear what this sentence means. What
L1C-12
20
monitoring of burrowing owls? And how would such monitoring inform the avoidance
and minimization approaches?
MM BIO-3: Avoidance of Nesting Bird Impacts:
I concur with timing construction to avoid the avian breeding season. I must add,
however, that no matter when construction takes place, habitat would be permanently
destroyed along with the reproductive capacity that habitat supports.
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, few of the active nests would 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 insufficient
to reduce the project’s impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to formulate appropriate
measures to mitigate project 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. Survey protocols that need to be implemented include CDFW (2012)
for burrowing owls. The guidelines call for multiple surveys throughout the breeding
season.
L1C-12
Cont.
L1C-13
21
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
area and whether bats forage on site, especially pallid bat, which the IS/MND assigns
moderate occurrence likelihood.
Preconstruction surveys: Completion of 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. At least an equal area of land should be protected in
perpetuity as close to the project site as possible, but a larger area is likely warranted to
mitigate for the impacts to so many special-status species of wildlife as likely occur on
the site. And 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).
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.
L1C-13
Cont.
22
REFERENCES CITED
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
City of Chula Vista. 2022. VWP-OP Shinohara Owner, LLC, Shinohara Business Center
Project Case # IS21-0006, SCH 2022080431, Mitigated Negative Declaration
Recirculation. Prepared by McKenna Lanier Group, Inc.
County of San Diego. 2010. County of San Diego guidelines for determining significance
and report format and content requirements biological resources. Land Use and
Environment Group Department of Planning and Land Use Department of Public
Works, Fourth Revision.
Dudek. 2022. Biology Letter Report for Shinohara Business Center (previously 517
Shinohara Lane), City of Chula Vista, California. Prepared for VWP-OP Shinohara
Owner, Phoenix, 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.
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.
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.
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. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony
of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
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
Photo 14. Red-tailed hawk 15 m from the project site, 18 February 2023.
EXHIBIT D
1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Oscar Romero, Project Planner
City of Chula Vista
Development Services Department
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910 22 September 2022
RE: Shinohara Business Center
Dear Mr. Romero,
I write to comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
prepared for the proposed Shinohara Business Center Project, which I understand
would add a warehouse and an office building with 178,156 sf of floor space on 9.72
acres at 517 Shinohara Lane (City of Chula Vista 2022). In support of my comments, I
reviewed a biological resources report (Dudek 2022), which was prepared for a project
with a larger 195,216 sf warehouse and 7,468 sf leasing office.
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
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from
California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 2.13
hours from 06:40 to 09:05 hours on 14 September 2022. She viewed the site from the
site’s northwest, northeast, and southeast corners, scanning for wildlife with use of
binoculars. Conditions were cloudy with 0 3 MPH wind from the south and
temperatures ranged 67 69° F. The proposed project site is on a slope with small hills
covered in annual grasses and short-statured shrubs (Photos 1 and 2).
Noriko detected 21 species of vertebrate wildlife at or near the site (Table 1), 4 of which
were special-status species. Noriko saw California thrashers just offsite and a red-tailed
hawk on and over the project site (Photos 3 and 4), and many Western gulls flying over
Letter 1 -
Exhibit D
L1D-1
L1D-2
2
the site (Photo 5). She saw many Anna’s and Allen’s hummingbirds utilizing the site and
adjacent trees (Photo 6), a Cassin’s kingbird hunting insects on site (Photo 7), black
phoebe hunting insects (Photo 8), many house finches (Photo 9), mourning doves and
California towhees (Photos 10 and 11), and western bluebirds and American crows
Photos 12 and 13), among other species. Noriko scanned an adjacent undeveloped site
east of Brandywine Ave., where she saw California thrashers, northern mockingbirds,
and song sparrows. Though those birds were off the project site, their home ranges
likely overlapped the project site. Despite the minimal visual access points to the site,
Noriko still managed to see enough of the wildlife community to confirm that the site is
inherently rich in wildlife.
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and
accurately reported.
Photos 1 and 2. Views of the site from the SE corner (top) and from the NW corner
bottom), 14 September 2022.
L1D-2
Cont.
3
Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed during 2.13 hours of survey
on 14 September 2022.
Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Many
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Many
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Many flew over
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Caught insect on site
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Foraged on site
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many
Common raven Corvus corax
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Off site
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Off site
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Off site
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Off site
California towhee Pipilo crissalis
Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Just off site
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, BOP =
Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
Photos 3 and 4. California thrasher and northern mockingbird perched on a tree at
an adjacent site, left, and a red-tailed hawk flying over the project site, right, 14
September 2022.
L1D-2
Cont.
4
Photo 5. Western gulls flying over the project site, 14 September 2022.
Photos 6 and 7. Allen’s hummingbird perched just off the project site, left, and a
Cassin’s kingbird perched on the project site after catching and eating an insect, right,
14 September 2022.
L1D-2
Cont.
5
Photos 8 and 9. Black phoebe, left, and house finch, right, on the project site, 14
September 2022.
Photos 10 and 11. Mourning dove and California towhee next to the project site, 14
September 2022.
L1D-2
Cont.
6
Photos 12 and 13. Western bluebird next to the project site, left, and an American
crow flying over the project site, right, 14 September 2022.
Reconnaissance-level surveys, such as the survey completed by Noriko, 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). This pattern reflects the
relative ease of detecting the most conspicuous species early during the survey, and the
increasing difficulty in detecting the rarer and more cryptic of the species on site. In the
case of Noriko’s survey, the pattern in the data (Figure 1) predicts that had she spent
more time on site, or had she help from additional biologists, she would have detected
39 species of vertebrate wildlife after 5 person-hours, 60 species after 10 person-hours,
and more species yet after more survey time. The pattern in the data indicates that the
site’s richness of wildlife species eventually exceeded the upper bound of the 95%
confidence interval estimated from 24 other project sites she and I have surveyed in the
south coast region of California. The site is as rich or richer in wildlife species as other
sites we have visited, and it is amply used by wildlife (Figure 1).
The site supports more species of wildlife than Noriko could detect during a brief
reconnaissance-level survey. 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.
L1D-2
Cont.
L1D-3
7
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 Noriko
Smallwood’s visual-scan
survey on 14 September
2022, and compared to the
95% CI of surveys at 24
other sites she and I
completed in the south coast
region. Note that the
relationship would differ if
the survey was based on
another method or during
another season.
By use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a
research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make 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: =1
1 +×() , where
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 10.1 species over the first
2.13 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (2.13 hours to match the number of 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 Minutes
into survey 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Cumulative
number
of wildlife
species detectedY Model prediction r2 = 0.
99, loss = 8.2 95%
CI of 24 visual-
scan surveys 2019-2022
Actual count
8
hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 17.72% of the predicted total
number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site.
Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 21 species Noriko detected after her 2.13
hours of survey at the project site likely represented 17.72% 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, she would likely detect 21
0.1772=119 species of
vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming her ratio of special-status to non-special-status
species was to hold with through the detections of all 119 predicted species, then
continued surveys would eventually detect 23 special-status species of wildlife.
Again, however, my prediction of 119 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 23 special-
status species of wildlife, is derived from a daytime visual-scan survey, and would not
detect nocturnal mammals. The true number of species composing the wildlife
community of the site must be larger. A reconnaissance-level survey should serve only
as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but it certainly
cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. 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.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, , 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.
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
0 20 40 60 801000
10
20
30
40
50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)(
95% CI)
L1D-
4 Cont.
9
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, and (2) reviews of literature,
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
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed
project, it helps for both the analysis and the public to be informed of which biological
species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are
likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts
need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining
on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.
There are three types of survey for wildlife at a project site that are typical of CEQA
review. One is known as a species-specific detection survey, which follows a
methodological protocol formulated by experts on the species. The protocol balances
cost against a reasonable likelihood of detection should the species be present. If the
protocol is followed, but the species is not detected, then the negative outcome of the
detection survey can serve as support for an absence determination, i.e., the species at
issue can be determined absent from the site for however long the protocol specifies. It
is therefore important that the details of the detection survey be reported so that the
reader can compare these details to the minimum standards of the detection survey
protocol.
Two other types of survey for wildlife at proposed project sites are known as
reconnaissance survey, otherwise known as general survey, and habitat
assessment. The typical objective of reconnaissance survey is to inventory the species
that compose the wildlife community, whereas that of habitat assessment is to assign
occurrence likelihoods to special-status species based on documented associations
between each species and environmental settings. Unlike the carefully formulated
protocols of detection surveys, reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments lack
formal standards of implementation and interpretation. The outcome of a 5-minute
reconnaissance survey should not be afforded the same credibility as that of a 5-hour
reconnaissance survey, but no guidance is available on how long a reconnaissance
survey should last or what its findings should mean. It is therefore very important that
the methodological details of reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments be
reported. It is just as important that the standards of interpretation be reported, along
with sources of uncertainty and bias.
L1D-5
Cont.
L1D-6
10
Sources of potential uncertainty and bias abound in reconnaissance surveys for the
purpose of wildlife species inventory. Biologists vary in their skill at detecting wildlife
species, and all are imperfect observers. After all, some species are large, loud, colorful
or abundant, and can readily be seen during diurnal surveys, whereas others are tiny,
quiet, cryptic or rare, or are detectable only by night or by trapping or use of remote-
sensing technology. In my experience, some species typically do not reveal themselves
until I have been on the survey station for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or for hours. The
inventory will be the product of the amount of survey time and the range of survey
methods invested. As examples, because nocturnal surveys and trapping with live bait
are rarely implemented as part of reconnaissance surveys, bats and shrews rarely find
their places on species inventories at proposed project sites. Membership on an
inventory can also carry different meanings based on how each species occurs at the site.
Whereas some species are resident year-round, others can be seasonal or ephemeral in
their occurrences at a site. Should a species be included on an inventory depends on the
analyst’s standard of what counts as presence, but that standard should be reported so
that the public can decide whether to agree with it. In short, reconnaissance survey can
only sample the true suite of wildlife species of a site, and most often, the sample will be
biased against the rare, sensitive and threatened or endangered species that CEQA is
most concerned about.
Reconnaissance surveys occasionally reveal the presence of special-status species,
sometimes due to the skill of the observer but often due to luck of survey timing. What
these surveys cannot reveal is the absences of any species whose geographic ranges
overlap the site and whose habitat associations at all resemble conditions of the site.
And it is habitat associations that consulting biologists often rely upon to determine
likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. Unfortunately, habitat associations
often poorly comport with the habitat concept, which is that habitat is that part of the
environment that is used by a species (Hall et al. 1997), and which is described by
scientists through measurement (Smallwood 2002). Habitat associations defined by
consulting biologists typically lack foundation in actual measurements of habitat use,
and are therefore speculative and prone to error. One source of error is to map
vegetation complexes as habitat types, to which consulting biologists assign species by
association without concern for the unrealistically hard boundaries that divide the
mapped habitat types. Another source of error is to pigeon-hole species into
unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which can then be said not to exist
on the project site. A third source of error is to assign functions to habitat for the
purpose of dividing habitat into unrealistic functional parts, such as between breeding
habitat versus foraging habitat. Primacy is assigned to breeding habitat, which often can
be said not to exist on the project site. In reality, all parts of an animal’s habitat are
essential to breeding success, regardless of where breeding opportunities occur.1
1 Animals unable to find sufficient forage, refugia, or travel opportunities are just as unable to reproduce as those
unable to find sufficient nest-site opportunities. Per the precautionary principle of risk analysis and consistent with
the habitat concept, CEQA review should be based on the broadest of available habitat characterizations, which
should be interpreted on the whole rather than contrived functional parts. Any detections of a species on or over
a site, regardless of time of year, should be interpreted as that species’ use of habitat, any part of which is critical
to breeding success.
L1D-6
Cont.
11
Given the true cost of species inventory, the temptation to shortcut the analysis of
occurrence likelihoods is understandable. In the spirit and intent of CEQA, a reasonably
feasible sampling of the species inventory should be the first objective of reconnaissance
surveys. Several approaches to sound interpretation of the sampled inventory are
defensible. One is to commit to a survey effort that results in the detection of a sufficient
number of species to accurately estimate the number of species yet to be detected, which
is the approach I applied in this comment letter. A second approach is to honestly report
the uncertainties and biases of the characterizations of the species inventory and of the
likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. In the third approach, the analyst can
assume species are present until suitable evidence is acquired in support of an absence
determination. This last approach would be consistent with the precautionary principle
of risk analysis directed toward rare and precious resources (National Research Council
1986). Regardless of the approach, most important is to refrain from determining
species are absent before sufficient survey has been completed, and to refrain from
asserting certainty in the species inventory when that certainty is unjustified.
How did the IS/MND address the wildlife species inventory and special-
status species occurrence likelihoods at the project site?
Dudek (2022) completed a reconnaissance-level survey for wildlife on 18 January and
23 July 2018, and a focused burrowing owl survey on 25 January 2018. The
reconnaissance surveys on 18 January and 23 July 2018 were intended to map
vegetation, assess jurisdictional features, and identify and record “All plant species and
animal species encountered during the survey.” However, the essential methodological
details needed by the reader to assess the survey’s outcome are not reported for the two
reconnaissance-level surveys, such as who performed them, time of day when the
surveys started, and how long the surveys lasted. At least 5 person-hours are reported
for the focused burrowing owl surveys, and another 5.42 hours are reported for the 1
June 2022 vegetation survey. Dudek (2022) reports having detected 16 species of
vertebrate wildlife during their 4 surveys, including 4 species that Noriko had not
detected.
The species of vertebrate wildlife detected by Dudek (2022) numbered three-fourths the
number detected by Noriko Smallwood, even though Noriko completed her survey in
less than a fifth of Dudek’s survey time and having had access to only at the outside
portions of 3 corners of the site. Dudek detected only 1 special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife to Noriko’s 4 special-status species. Dudek’s 2018 surveys were not
nearly as productive as Noriko’s, and were therefore likely inaccurate. The IS/MND
makes misleading use of the wildlife surveys completed on the project site.
The reporting of the Dudek surveys is also inconsistent. Whereas the IS/MND reports
No other special-status wildlife species [than monarch] were detected during the 2018
or 2021 surveys,” in the next paragraph, it reports “All raptors species are considered
special-status,” and reports a red-shouldered hawk having been seen soaring over the
project site. And whereas the IS/MND reports a red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)
was seen soaring over the site, Dudek (2022) reports having seen a red-tailed hawk
soaring over the site. It would help to clarify which species of raptor was seen, but more
L1D-6
Cont.
L1D-7
12
importantly it would help to remain consistent with the standard earlier set in the
IS/MND. Given the standard that raptor species are special-status species, the sighting
of one was evidence of another special-status species occurring on site other than
monarch.
Even had the above-finding been accurate, it neglecteds the context of survey effort and
survey methods needed to assess the veracity of the reported finding. As shown in
Figures 1 and 2, the number of wildlife species detected during a survey is largely a
function of survey duration, but the IS/MND does not disclose survey duration.
Implying the absences of all other potentially-occurring special-status species is
unsupported by evidence.
And although the IS/MND acknowledges the detection of monarch butterfly, which is a
candidate for federal listing, it dismisses the observation as insignificant for the reason
that “the site lacks this species host plant (Asclepias spp.) and suitable overwintering
habitat” (page 45). This reasoning, however, is based on a false premise. The IS/MND
inaccurately implies over-wintering habitat is required for an occurrence to be regarded
as significant. This is not the case. The conservation strategy of the Western Monarch
Butterfly Conservation Plan 2016-2069 is to “Protect and restore overwintering groves,
including development of site-specific grove management plans; and conserve monarch
breeding and migratory habitats in natural lands, urban and industrial, rights-of-way,
and agricultural habitat sectors.” Migratory habitats are no less important to the
conservation of monarchs than are overwintering groves, and the plan identifies urban
areas as contributive to migratory habitat. The observation of a monarch on the project
site is evidence that the site at minimum serves as part of a migration route to and from
over-wintering sites. The observation is significant, and warrants an appropriate
analysis of potential project impacts to monarch.
In another example of inconsistency, Dudek (2022:4) reports, “Potential California
ground squirrel (Spermophilus Otospermophilus] beecheyi [sic])2 and other rodent
burrows were also observed on portions of the site. The site supports marginal habitat
for burrowing owls based on the results of the habitat assessment.” Dudek (2022:App.
E)later reports, “no suitable [burrowing owl] burrows were identified on the site.”
Either ground squirrel burrows occur on site, or they do not. That another focused
burrowing owl survey was completed suggests that the outcome of the first focused
burrowing owl survey compelled the second focused survey. The occurrence of ground
squirrel burrows would have compelled the second survey. Dudek (202) should clarify
whether ground squirrels were present on site.
Detection Surveys
Dudek (2022) reports on the outcomes of “focused” burrowing owl surveys, and reports
to have “conducted a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat assessment following
the protocol in the Staff Report for Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).” However,
the Dudek (2022) surveys did not come close to meeting the standards of the CDFW
2 The species name is Otospermophilus beecheyi.
L1D-7
Cont.
L1D-8
13
2012) survey guidelines for burrowing owls. As examples, Dudek (2022) did not
summarize the qualifications of the biologists who completed the surveys, nor did
Dudek (2022) provide sufficient evidence of their familiarity with burrowing owl
ecology and conservation. Despite having detected ground squirrel burrows on site, and
despite concluding that the site has potential to support burrowing owls, no breeding-
season surveys were completed. Not completing breeding-season surveys in the face of
the cited evidence was inconsistent with the recommendations of CDFW (2012).
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
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, based on Dudek (2022) inappropriately uses California Natural Diversity Data
Base (CNDDB) to determine which species have potential to occur in the project area. In
determining which species not expected to occur, and which species have low likelihood
of occurrence, Dudek (2022) repeatedly cites lack of occurrence records “in the vicinity,”
according to CDFW (2019). CDFW (2019) does not appear in Dudek’s (2022) list of
references, but I assume CDFW (2019) was CNDDB (referenced as CNDDB 2018). By
relying on CNDDB records to determine species’ absences, the IS/MND via Dudek
2022) misapplies CNDDB. CNDDB was not designed to support absence
determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife
community. 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
status since the inception of CNDDB. Because western gull, California thrasher and
L1D-8
Cont.
L1D-9
Cont.
14
multiple other species were not assigned special status until 2021, these species would
have lacked records in CNDDB when the reconnaissance surveys were completed. This
lack of CNDDB records had nothing to do with true geographic distributions of the
species at issue. And because negative findings are not reported to CNDDB, CNDDB
cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods (such as low occurrence
likelihood), either.
In my assessment based on database reviews and on reconnaissance surveys, 124
special-status species of vertebrate wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to
be analyzed for occurrence potential at one time or another (Table 2). Of these, 3 were
confirmed on site by reconnaissance surveys, and database occurrences include 41
33%) within 1.5 miles of the site, 40 (33%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and 36
29%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Two-thirds (67%) of the potentially-occurring
species of vertebrate wildlife in Table 2 have been recorded within 4 miles of the site.
With so many species known to occur so close to the project site, it is easy to conclude
that the site carries a lot of potential for supporting special-status species of wildlife. On
any given day, one or more of these species likely make use of the project site, but
multiple surveys are needed to document that use (see Figures 1 and 2). Sufficient
survey effort should be directed to the site to either confirm these species use the site or
to support absence determinations. But surveys completed to date cannot support an
absence determination assigned to any of these species, including California
gnatcatcher.
Of the 43 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife the IS/MND (Dudek 2022)
addresses and which appear in my Table 2, 24 are given low likelihood of occurrence,
and 19 are not expected to occur. Fifteen of these 43 species have been documented
within 1.5 miles of the site, 9 have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site,
and 18 have been documented within 4 and 30 miles of the site. These distances are not
great, putting 24 (>50%) special-status species in close proximity to the site. Most of the
IS/MND’s occurrence likelihood determinations do not comport with the close distances
of occurrence records nor with reconnaissance survey outcomes.
The IS/MND (Dudek 2022) neglects to analyze the occurrence potentials of 81 (64%) of
the 127 special-status species of wildlife in Table 2. Of these, 3 were confirmed on site,
and databases and site visits include occurrence records of 25 within 1.5 miles and 27
within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. The IS/MND made insufficient use of the wildlife
occurrence databases, and is not supported by due diligence.
The project would potentially affect up to 21 special-status species of wildlife in Table 2
that are covered by the MSCP. Of these 21 species, 9 have been documented within 1.5
miles of the site, 8 have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 3 have
been documented within 4 and 30 miles of the site. The project would potentially cause
impacts to these 21 species for which the MSCP is attempting to conserve. Importantly,
106 special-status species in Table 2 are not covered by MSCP. Four of these species
have been confirmed on site, and 32 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site,
32 within 1.5 and 4 miles, and 35 within 4 and 30 miles of the site. Most of the special-
status species at risk of harm due to the project are not covered by the MSCP.
L1D-9
Cont.
15
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 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30
miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site.
Common name, Species name Status1
MHCP
cover
Occurrence
likelihood
IS/
MND2
Databases,
site visits
Quino checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino FE, CSD1 None In region
Monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus FC, CSD2 On site On site
Hermes copper, Lycaena hermes FC Low In region
Crotch’s bumble bee, Bombus crotchii CCE Very close
Western spadefoot, Spea hammondii SSC, CSD2 Yes None Nearby
Arroyo toad, Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC None In region
Western pond turtle, Emys marmorata SSC Yes Nearby
San Diego Banded gecko, Coleonyx variegatus abbotti SSC, CSD1 In region
Coast horned lizard, Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC, CSD2 Low Nearby
Coronado skink, Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis WL, CSD2 None In region
Orange-throated whiptail, Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL, CSD2 Yes Low Very close
San Diegan tiger whiptail, Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC, CSD2 Low In region
San Diegan legless lizard, Anniella stebbinsi SSC Low Very close
Coastal rosy boa, Lichanura trivirgata FSC [1993] , CSD2 Nearby
California glossy snake, Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC, CSD2 Low In region
Baja California coachwhip, Masticophis fuliginosus SSC Low Nearby
San Diego ringneck snake, Diadophis punctatus similis CSD2 In region
Coast patchnose snake, Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC, CSD2 Low In region
Two-striped gartersnake, Thamnophis hammondii SSC, CSD1 None Nearby
South coast garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC, CSD2 In range
Red diamond rattlesnake, Crotalus ruber SSC, CSD2 Low Very close
Brant, Branta bernicla SSC Nearby
Moffitt’s Canada goose, Branta canadensis moffitti CSD2 In region
Redhead, Aythya americana SSC, CSD2 Nearby
L1D-9
Cont.
16
Common name, Species name Status1
MHCP
cover
Occurrence
likelihood
IS/
MND2
Databases,
site visits
Western grebe, Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC, CSD1 Nearby
Clark’s grebe, Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC None In region
Black swift, Cypseloides niger BCC, CSD2 Nearby
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 On site
Snowy plover, Charadrius nivosus BCC Yes Nearby
Whimbrel, Numenius phaeopus BCC Nearby
Long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus BCC, WL, CSD2 Nearby
Marbled godwit, Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Short-billed dowitcher, Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Willet, Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Laughing gull, Leucophaeus atricilla WL, CSD2 Nearby
Heermann’s gull, Larus heermanni BCC Nearby
Western gull, Larus occidentalis BCC On site
California gull, Larus californicus WL, CSD2 Very close
California least tern, Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP Yes None Nearby
Caspian tern, Hydroprogne caspia BCC, CSD1 Nearby
Common loon, Gavia immer SSC CSD2 Nearby
Double-crested cormorant, Phalacrocorax auritus WL, CSD2 None Very close
American white pelican, Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, CSD2 Very close
Least bittern, Ixobrychus exilis SSC, CSD2 Nearby
Green heron, Butorides striatus CSD2 Very close
White-faced ibis, Plegadis chihi WL, CSD1 Yes Nearby
Turkey vulture, Cathartes aura BOP, CSD 1 Very close
Osprey, Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP, CSD1 Yes None Very close
L1D-9
Cont.
17
Common name, Species name Status1
MHCP
cover
Occurrence
likelihood
IS/
MND2
Databases,
site visits
White-tailed kite, Elanus leucurus CFP, WL, BOP, CSD1 Very close
Golden eagle, Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP, CSD1 Nearby
Northern harrier, Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP, CSD1 Low Very close
Sharp-shinned hawk, Accipiter striatus BOP, CSD1 Very close
Cooper’s hawk, Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP, CSD1 Yes Low Very close
Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP, CSD1 Nearby
Red-shouldered hawk, Buteo lineatus BOP, CSD1 Very close
Swainson’s hawk, Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP, CSD1 None Nearby
Zone-tailed hawk, Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis BOP, WL, CSD1 Nearby
Barn owl, Tyto alba BOP, CSD2 Very close
Western screech-owl, Megascops kennicotti BOP In region
Great-horned owl, Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl, Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP, CSD1 Low Nearby
Long-eared owl, Asio otus SSC3, CSD1 In region
Lewis’s woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis BCC, CSD1 In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker, Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
American kestrel, Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin, Falco columbarius WL, BOP, CSD2 Very close
Peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus CFP, BCC, BOP, CSD1 Yes Low Very close
Prairie falcon, Falco mexicanus BCC, WL, BOP, CSD1 Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi SSC2, CSD2 Very close
Willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii CE, BCC Nearby
Vermilion flycatcher, Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2, CSD1 Very close
Least Bell’s vireo, Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE, CSD1 Yes None Very close
Loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2, CSD1 Very close
Oak titmouse, Baeolophus inornatus BCC In region
L1D-9
Cont.
18
Common name, Species name Status1
MHCP
cover
Occurrence
likelihood
IS/
MND2
Databases,
site visits
California horned lark, Eremophila alpestris actia WL, CSD2 Low Very close
Bank swallow, Riparia riparia CT, CSD1 Nearby
Purple martin, Progne subis SSC2, CSD1 Nearby
Wrentit, Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher, Polioptila c. californica CT, SSC, CSD1 Yes Low Very close
Clark’s marsh wren, Cistothorus palustris clarkae SSC2 In range
San Diego cactus wren, Campylorhynchs brunneicapillus sandiegensis BCC, SSC1, CSD1 Yes None Nearby
California thrasher, Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Western bluebird, Sialia mexicana CSD2 Yes Very close
Lawrence’s goldfinch, Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum SSC2, CSD1 In region
Black-chinned sparrow, Spizella atrogularis BCC In region
Bell’s sage sparrow, Amphispiza b. belli WL, CSD1 Yes None In region
Oregon vesper sparrow, Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Very close
Belding’s savannah sparrow, Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE, CSD1 Yes None Nearby
Large-billed savannah sparrow, Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2 Yes Nearby
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, WL, CSD1 Yes Low Very close
Yellow-breasted chat, Icteria virens SSC3, CSD1 Yes None Very close
Yellow-headed blackbird, Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close
Bullock’s oriole, Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird, Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, CSD1 None Very close
Lucy’s warbler, Leiothlypis luciae SSC, BCC, CSD1 Nearby
Virginia’s warbler, Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby
Yellow warbler, Setophaga petechia SSC2, CSD2 None Very close
Summer tanager, Piranga rubra SSC1, CSD2 Nearby
Pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H, CSD2 Low In region
Townsend’s western big-eared bat, Plecotus t. townsendii SSC, WBWG:H, CSD2 None In region
California leaf nosed bat, Macrotus californicus SSC, WBWG:H In region
L1D-9
Cont.
19
Common name, Species name Status1
MHCP
cover
Occurrence
likelihood
IS/
MND2
Databases,
site visits
Western red bat, Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H, CSD2 None In region
Hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western yellow bat, Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H None In region
Small-footed myotis, Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M, CSD2 In region
Miller’s myotis, Myotis evotis WBWG:M, CSD2 In region
Fringed myotis, Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H, CSD2 In region
Long-legged myotis, Myotis volans WBWG:H, CSD2 In region
Yuma myotis, Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWG:LM, CSD2 In region
Western mastiff bat, Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H, CSD2 Low In region
Pocketed free tailed bat, Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M, CSD2 Low In region
Big free-tailed bat, Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG: MH Low In region
American badger, Taxidea taxus SSC, CSD2 Low In region
Dulzura pocket mouse, Chaetodipus californicus femoralis SSC, CSD2 In range
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Chaetodipus f. fallax SSC, CSD2 Yes Low In range
Los Angeles pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC, CSD2 In region
Pacific pocket mouse, Perognathus longimembris pacificus FE, SSC Low In region
Stephens’ kangaroo rat, Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT, CSD1 Yes In region
San Diego desert woodrat, Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC, CSD2 Low In region
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, Lepus californicus bennettii SSC, CSD2 Yes Low In region
1 FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FCE = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of
Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCE = California candidate for listing, CFP = California Fully
Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California species of special concern (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), BOP = Birds of prey (CFG Code 3503.5), WL = Taxa to
Watch List, WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listed as low (L), moderate (M) or high (H) priority, CSD1 and CSD2 Group 1 and
Group 2 species on County of San Diego Sensitive Animal List (County of San Diego 2010).
2 Reported in Dudek (2022); I replaced “not expected” with “none”
L1D-9
Cont.
20
Occurrence likelihood determinations often fail to comport with the habitat descriptions
provided for special-status species of wildlife in Dudek 202: App. E). For example,
Dudek (2022) describes habitat of San Diegan tiger whiptail as “Hot and dry areas with
sparse foliage, including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas,” – a description that
appears very similar to that found in californiaherps.com, but then determines the
species has only low likelihood of occurrence because “the habitat is primarily disturbed
and the site is surrounded by urban development with no connectivity to other natural
areas.” The explanation does not comport with the habitat description, nor does the
habitat description accurately include disturbed habitat as suitable for the species. San
Diegan tiger whiptail often occurs on disturbed areas, and I have found some in such
areas. In San Marcos I found San Diegan tiger whiptail on graded land next to a brewery
and an apartment complex, bounded on two sides by major roads. The species is not as
limited as Dudek portrays.
In the case of Blainville’s horned lizard, Dudek (2022) describes habitat as “Open areas
of sandy soil in valleys, foothills, and semi-arid mountains including coastal scrub,
chaparral, valley–foothill hardwood, conifer, riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and
annual grassland habitats.” Dudek then assigns low likelihood of occurrence because
coastal scrub is in short supply on site. Like for San Diegan tiger whiptail, the habitat
description looks very similar to that of californiaherps.com. However, the description
in californiaherps.com is more expansive, including grasslands and other environments
not included in Dudek’s description. Based on my experience with Blainville’s horned
lizard, the site appears suitable to the species.
For multiple species, Dudek (2022) pigeon-holes species into unrealistically narrow
portions of the environment, which are more readily reported not to exist on the project
site. For example, Dudek (2022) reports that southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow “Nests and forages in open coastal scrub and chaparral with low cover of
scattered scrub interspersed with rocky and grassy patches.” Dudek than seizes on one
small portion of this description to conclude low potential because “There is coastal
scrub present, however there are no rocky and grassy patches on site.” Of the times I
have detected this species, rock and grassy patches are nowhere to be seen. Only two
days prior to my completion of these comments, I encountered southern California
rufous-crowned sparrows nowhere near any grassy patches and hundreds of meters
from the nearest rocks. Lack of rock and grassy patches does not restrict this species
from occurring where everything else the species needs can be found.
For multiple species, such as for Cooper’s hawk and just about every species of bird,
Dudek (2022) assigns functions to habitat for the purpose of dividing habitat into
unrealistic functional parts, such as between breeding habitat versus foraging habitat.
Primacy is assigned to breeding habitat, which often can be said not to exist on the
project site. In reality, all parts of an animal’s habitat are essential to breeding success,
regardless of where breeding opportunities occur. Animals unable to find sufficient
forage, refugia, or travel opportunities are just as unable to reproduce as those unable to
find sufficient nest-site opportunities. Per the precautionary principle of risk analysis
and consistent with the habitat concept, CEQA review should be based on the broadest
of available habitat characterizations, which should be interpreted on the whole rather
L1D-9
Cont.
21
than contrived functional parts. Any detections of a species on or over a site, regardless
of time of year, should be interpreted as that species’ use of habitat, any part of which is
critical to breeding success.
For some of the species in App. E of Dudek (2022), the analysis is just simply wrong. For
example, Dudek (2022) claims that peregrine falcon would not forage in disturbed
environments or urban settings. I have found and recorded many peregrine falcons in
just these sorts of environments, including in Berkeley, the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Fresno, Bakersfield and on a Navy Base near Chula Vista. The scientific
literature is full of similar findings. In another example, Dudek (2022) falsely claims
that California horned larks do not nest on disturbed soils, and falsely implies that the
species somehow cannot tolerate the presence of ripgut brome. I have documented
California horned lark nesting on agricultural land where their nests were surrounded
by ripgut brome.
Occurrence likelihood determinations for species such as green sea turtle are out of
place in Dudek (2022). There is no point in reporting likelihoods of occurrence of
species that could not possibly occur at the 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. 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.
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 demographic
units of the species, or the whole of a species. In the following, I analyze several types of
impacts likely to result from the project, one of which is unsoundly analyzed and the
others not analyzed in the IS/MND.
HABITAT LOSS
The project area is undergoing severe habitat fragmentation, which is a process widely
believed to pose the greatest threat to wildlife conservation (Smallwood 2015). The
project would contribute further to habitat fragmentation in an environmental setting in
which wildlife would be devastated by further habitat fragmentation.
Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading
causes 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
L1D-9
Cont.
L1D-10
L1D-11
22
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 quarter of the
total nesting density of the above-referenced study sites, and applying this adjusted
density to the 9.72 acres of the project site, one can predict a loss of 83 bird nests.
The loss of 83 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 241 fledglings per year.
Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders
and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood
2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × number of years ÷ years/
generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 274 birds per year denied to California. The project’s denial
to California of 274 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 47), “The project is surrounded by urban development, has no
habitat connectivity, and serves no wildlife movement functions. Therefore, there are no
significant impacts on wildlife corridors or habitat linkages.” With this conclusion, the
IS/MND implies that the aerosphere is not considered habitat of those species that
use it to move through the region. Birds, bats and volant arthropods all travel through
the aerosphere, which for these species connects fragmented patches of terrestrial habitat
elements. The aerosphere as a vital component of habitat is a well-
recognized mode of wildlife movement (Kunz et al. 2008, Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et
al. 2017). Another fundamental flaw of the IS/
MND’s analysis is its implied premise that only disruption of the function of a
wildlife corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. This premise 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 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. L1D-12 L1D-13
23
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 14 17), 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.
Photo 14. 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 15. Great-tailed grackle walks
onto a rural road in Imperial County, 4
February 2022.
Photo 16. Mourning dove killed by
vehicle on a California road. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.
L1D-14
24
Photo 17. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife
mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch
of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California.
Fatality searches in this study found 1,275
carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds,
amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of
searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality
number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of
fatalities that were not found due to scavenger
removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for
searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step
was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of
another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment
factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying
searcher detection rates from 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 over
1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. 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.
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.
L1D-14
Cont.
25
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife
The IS/MND predicts 42,012 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), following construction
VMT of 460,296. The daily VMT projected to the year would predict an annual VMT of
15,334,380. 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 15,334,380 annual VMT following construction VMT of 460,
296 leads to predictions of 8,402 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year as part of project
operations after 252 wildlife fatalities caused by construction traffic. Assuming the rates
of fatalities found at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009) would apply to the
proposed project, the annual number of wildlife fatalities resulting from project operations would
include 1,344 members of special-status species. 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. The first flaw is the lack of any cumulative effects analysis specifically
directed towards biological resources. A second flaw
of the cumulative effects analysis is its vague reliance on an existing plan as some form
of umbrella mitigation without explaining how the umbrella of the other plan would cover
the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. According to the IS/MND, the
project is generally consistent with the City’s General Plan Vision 2020, and impacts are
analyzed under the General Plan EIR. According to CEQA Guideline 15064(h)(3), “
When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing
the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that
the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.”
The IS/MND provides no explanation of how implementing the particular
requirements of the General Plan EIR would minimize, avoid or offset
the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts. A fair argument
can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to provide sufficient analysis of potential
project contributions to cumulative impacts and whether and how such impacts can
be mitigated. L1D-15 L1D-
16
26
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM BIO-1: Compensatory Uplands Mitigation: “Per the HLIT ordinance, 7.59
acres of impacts to sensitive uplands shall be mitigated at the required mitigation ratios
Table 1).”
The IS/MND’s Table 1 reveals only 4.06 acres would be conserved at a conservation
bank in exchange for the loss of the 7.59 acres of habitat deemed significant in the
IS/MND. However, burrows of California ground squirrel were found on a portion of the
project site mapped as “Disturbed Habitat.” No detection surveys consistent with CDFW
2012) survey guidelines were completed for burrowing owls, so a supportable absence
determination for burrowing owls has not been made. Furthermore, are often referred
to as disturbance-adapted, so Dudek’s definition of “Disturbed Habitat” would often
help to characterize potential burrowing owl habitat. I have personally discovered and
mapped the locations of burrowing owl nest sites and refuge sites on disturbed soils
such as along access roads, berms and in pile soils. In fact, burrowing owl conservation
efforts often involve trenching or piling of soils to attract burrowing owls to artificial
nest boxes (see Smallwood and Morrison 2018). Additionally, many other special-status
species likely make use of the so-called “Disturbed Habitat” that Dudek (2022) mapped.
Did the red-tailed hawk (or red-shouldered hawk) fly around the outskirts of the area
mapped as “Disturbed Habitat?” Dudek (2022) and the IS/MND falsely imply
disturbance as a barrier to occurrence of special-status species of wildlife. Purchasing
credits for 4 acres at a conservation bank would be grossly insufficient for the take of
nearly 10 acres of habitat desperately needed by many special-status species of wildlife
in the region.
Furthermore, most (85%) of the potentially-occurring special-status species in Table 2
are not covered by the MSCP, to which the cited HLIT ordinance applies. Sixty-eight
80%) of these species without MSCP coverage are known to have occurred within 4
miles of the project site, and reconnaissance surveys on the site have detected 4 of them.
The proposed compensatory mitigation therefore fails to offset potential impacts to the
majority of special-status species that potentially occur on the project site. Additional
compensatory mitigation is warranted, and some portion of it should be based on the
outcomes of detection surveys for burrowing owl.
MM BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Take Avoidance Surveys
Performing preconstruction take-avoidance surveys would be inappropriate without
first having completed breeding-season detection surveys (CDFW 2012). Both the
habitat assessment and preconstruction surveys do not provide the same likelihood of
detection of burrowing owls as do detection surveys, which is why preconstruction
surveys are supposed to follow breeding-season detection surveys, which themselves are
supposed to follow a habitat assessment that had determined potential exists for
burrowing owls to occur on site.
The final sentence of the IS/MND’s (page 49) paragraph on this measure reads, “The
development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be informed by
L1D-17
27
monitoring the burrowing owls.” It is unclear what this sentence means. What
monitoring of burrowing owls? And how would such monitoring inform the avoidance
and minimization approaches?
MM BIO-3: Avoidance of Nesting Bird Impacts:
I concur with timing construction to avoid the avian breeding season. I must add,
however, that no matter when construction takes place, habitat would be permanently
destroyed along with the reproductive capacity that habitat supports.
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, few of the active nests would 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 insufficient
to reduce the project’s impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to formulate appropriate
measures to mitigate project 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. Survey protocols that need to be implemented include CDFW (2012)
L1D-17
Cont.
L1D-18
28
for burrowing owls. 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
area and whether bats forage on site, especially pallid bat, which the IS/MND assigns
moderate occurrence likelihood.
Preconstruction surveys: Completion of 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. At least an equal area of land should be protected in
perpetuity as close to the project site as possible, but a larger area is likely warranted to
mitigate for the impacts to so many special-status species of wildlife as likely occur on
the site. And 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).
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.
L1D-18
Cont.
29
REFERENCES CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle
collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/
10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report
Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing
Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
City of Chula Vista. 2022. Initial Study: Shinohara Business Center. Chula Vista,
California.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented
skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat
concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dudek. 2022. Biology Letter Report for 517 Shinohara Lane, City of Chula Vista,
California. Prepared for OnPoint Development, LaJolla, 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.
Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook,
and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality
on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife
movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department,
Martinez, California.
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problem-
solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
30
Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.
Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North
American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).
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.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.
Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts,
challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of
Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony
of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
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.
1
Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
puma@dcn.org
Ecologist
Expertise
Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human
industry, infrastructure, and activities;
Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;
Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful
ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
668 professional publications, including:
88 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
554 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
87 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers
representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate
the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor,
Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The
five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC
reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised
Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting
services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and
produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research
to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous
waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat,
California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western
burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore;
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity,
Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field
Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy,
Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural
Resources Conservation.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and
monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric
distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including
travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on
integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas,
using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California,
Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife
interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater
across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists
and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and
other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to
determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in
Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting
services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their
conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29
special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County
Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and
spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and
Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in
California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination
across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine
Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard
Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research
Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research
Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North
America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on
economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term
monitoring.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical
monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods
used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based
collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies
principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay
Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field
biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The
goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new
wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before-
after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine
developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a
718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program
and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who
performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal
behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS
analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its
MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.
Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by
5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are
perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range
management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure
management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird
electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at
10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony
on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive
and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based
on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect
surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal
court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a
jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing
animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation,
Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as
well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for
evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered
substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired
power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery
systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities
Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of
Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared
expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife
and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant
kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s
hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the
decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented
habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and
Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus
epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie
and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day
workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1-
day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and
consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental
Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate
vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis
Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of
Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the
success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the
response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the
response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration
efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in
Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife
Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed
California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining
scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and
holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act
once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of
scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase
the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments
for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of
the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need
and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the
US and China.
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to
spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the
County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a
hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem
ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help
guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.
Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout
California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and
gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also
monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected
quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and
initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing
cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia,
the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other
wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a
200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and
methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups
in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on
vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base
of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater
contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various
poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in
forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern
California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and
bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research
and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health
hazards.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality
search intervals. Diversity 12(98); doi:10.3390/d12030098.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on
bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat
fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844
Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass
persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –
Smallwood CV 7
71.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of
burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.
Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife
Management 82:1169-1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by
wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind
energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S.,
Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind
turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife
Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts
and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an
example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife
and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United
Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind
energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife
Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange
Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of
Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and
H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman,
A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild
Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716-
1718.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.
Smallwood CV 8
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American
wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl
Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson
Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.
Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal
trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife
Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a
wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915-
943.http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed
Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor
111:247-254.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality
in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of
Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and
Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71:2781-2791.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl
mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513-
1524.
Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal
activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.
Smallwood CV 9
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.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:
Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.
Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and
integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.
Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.),
Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285-
298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania
eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of
Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.
Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density
estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and
K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions
of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.
Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro-
ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental
Planning and Management 44:345-355.
Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont
Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power
Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae)
density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.
Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.
Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and
real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered
species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.
Smallwood CV 10
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.
Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.
Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.
Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of
pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae)
density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in
clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of
the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis)
under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.
Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat
Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.
Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting
hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.
Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian
carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.
Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare
County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of
Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
Meeting 33:88-97.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants
by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist
17:289-295.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and
management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.
Smallwood CV 11
Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and
quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for
terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.
Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial,
mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.
Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in
agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64.
Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an
agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors
in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White-
tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.
Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press,
London.
Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across
an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.
Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in
forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis
concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259
Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation
69:251-259.
Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist
39:67-72.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.
Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual
mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern
Naturalist 38:65-67.
Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.
Biological Conservation 62:149-159.
Smallwood CV 12
Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of California, Davis.
Peer-reviewed Reports
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power
generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy
Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-
500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-
500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay,
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy
Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500-
2016-066
Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle
Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.
Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
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.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report
Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat
Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore,
California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_
bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range
Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other
Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California
Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No.
CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/
2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind
Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research
Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http://
www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065
Smallwood CV 13
Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds
Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy
Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted
but not published. Sacramento, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public
Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento,
California. 531 pp. http://www.altamontsrcarchive.org/alt_doc/cec_final_report_08_11_04.pdf
Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp.
Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the
Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy
Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp.
Non-Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird
Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with
Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of
Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an
International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU,
Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind
power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and
Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.
Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on
Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer
Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus.
Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind
turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California.
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway.
Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26.
Smallwood CV 14
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers
demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November
2004:26-27, 29-30.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay.
Environmental Conservation 30:210-211.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and
Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269-
270.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in
Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of
Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in
Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of
Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.
Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion
density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion
Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in
D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion
Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages
75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California
Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects.
Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable
Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco,
CA 94129-0075.
Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2,
Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development,
Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-
0075.
EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and
Development Department, Woodland, California.
Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural
Smallwood CV 15
sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA.
Taipei, Taiwan.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages
454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management
for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium
23:105-8.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa.
California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population
census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and
Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages
58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Phoenix.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population
levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game
and Fish Department, Phoenix.
Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to
SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County)
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC
document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through
2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda,
Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study
of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda,
Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study
through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in
Smallwood CV 16
former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). SRC
document P238, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and
abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P232,
County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, 2005-2011. SRC document P231, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering
Burrowing Owls. SRC document P229, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and
Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P228,
County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine
in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA).
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC
document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document
P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward,
California.
Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).
Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on
Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC
document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180,
County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA
Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood CV 17
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC
Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. SRC document
P168, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger
Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P171, County of Alameda, Hayward,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing
Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P161, County of
Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific
Review Committee. SRC document P153, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. SRC
document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and
Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document
P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda,
Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda
County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update
on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal
Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont
Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009.
Alameda County SRC document P-145.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda,
Hayward, California.
Smallwood CV 18
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and
Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning
Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against
Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC
comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. SRC document P107, County of
Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. SRC document
P106, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as
hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. SRC document P103, County of Alameda, Hayward,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around
the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass
Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. SRC document P101, County of
Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed
during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88,
County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010.
Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision-
related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC
document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First
DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document
P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11,
2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp.
Smallwood CV 19
Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s
recommended four-month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda
County SRC document P-23.
Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI
Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60.
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on
precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area,
California. SRC Document P44.
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over
which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43.
Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of
11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004.
SRC Document P26.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]).
April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget.
Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and
Relocations. SRC Document P22.
Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007.
Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries
and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20.
Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I
II Turbines. SRC Document S19.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the
SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500
Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7,
2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement.
Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA
Challenges. SRC Document S5.
Smallwood CV 20
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19,
2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the
Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization.
Reports to Clients
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects
in California. Report to undisclosed client.
Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird
carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District,
Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model
Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden
Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at
Rooney Ranch and Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report
to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa
Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model
performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area.
Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon
Society, East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at
Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from
repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa
Water District.
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological
Diversity. 28 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to
NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society,
East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at
Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc.,
Waltham, Massachusetts.
Smallwood CV 21
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at
Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra
Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at
Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to
NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the
Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF
Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind
Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report
to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation
planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve,
California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park
District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines,
Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR.
Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene
cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air
Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and
burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore.
Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one.
Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North
Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.
Smallwood CV 22
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve,
California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park
District.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in
Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge
Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011.
Report to Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor
collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass,
California. Report to Black & Veatch.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor
collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the
East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor
collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project,
Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach,
California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp
Smallwood CV 23
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa
Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009.
Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena
Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles
Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and
California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord,
California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and
Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat
County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve,
California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay
Regional Park District. 5 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog
at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48
pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow-
billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA),
Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay,
Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter
Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert
Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter
Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert
Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Smallwood CV 24
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the
Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland
Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord,
California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement –
N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team
IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander
2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California,
Oakland, CA. 139 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working
Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, puma@yolo.com . 34 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american
crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector
Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides)
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005
Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team
IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711-
04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland
habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement –
N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval
Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval
Smallwood CV 25
Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City,
CA 94014-1976. 20 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA),
Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County,
California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT)
West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600,
Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp.
Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on
the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions
CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental
Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time
shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p.
Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind
Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County,
Antioch, California. 22 pp.
Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth &
Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena
Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development
Department, Martinez, California.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat
assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site
30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat
assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter
Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal
projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the
Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore
Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134
pp.
Smallwood CV 26
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment to support an adaptive management plan for
the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial re-assessment of an adaptive management plan
for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of
priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the
APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA.
Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing
avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission,
PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in
Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and
Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.]
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the
federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement
N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore
Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp.
58 figures.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial
Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jefferson-
Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the
Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for
Renewable Energy. 32 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat
Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore
Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp.
36 figures.
Smallwood CV 27
Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the
effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission
lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the
East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp.
Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution
Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model.
Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study,
Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo,
California. 120 pp.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of
Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides)
Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress
report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger &
Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an
education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental
Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.
Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter
submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000
Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.
Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal.
Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the
Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power
Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment
Smallwood CV 28
of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and
Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on
behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy
Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable
Energy (CaRE). 11 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of
Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at
Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for
Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of
Transportation. 75 pp.
Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in
W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for
NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through
Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California mountain lion track count. Report to the Defenders of
Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New
Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National
Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of
giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation
Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison,
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland
mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher
burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C.,
Philadelphia. (peer reviewed).
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report
Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey,
08530.
Smallwood CV 29
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were
Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket
gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger &
Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and their management under the Martell SYP.
Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp.
EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo
County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and
recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide
Energy Research Group, University of California.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987
California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric
Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion
population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to
California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and
R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits.
Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA.
Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County,
1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis.
Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages)
I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents,
including:
Replies on UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2021; 13);
14 Charles Hill Circle Design Review (2021; 11);
SDG Commerce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26);
Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project DSEIR (2021; 98);
Clawiter Road Industrial Project IS/MND, Hayward (2021; 18);
Garnet Energy Center Stipulations, New York (2020);
Heritage Wind Energy Project, New York (2020: 71);
Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project IS/MND, Martinez (2020; 11);
Smallwood CV 30
Cambria Hotel Project Staff Report, Dublin (2020; 19);
Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20);
Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23);
Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26);
Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19);
Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22);
Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21);
Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24);
Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27);
2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4);
1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);
Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);
11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17);
Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);
Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64);
Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12);
Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28);
Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted;
Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);
3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19);
Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8);
2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25);
Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4);
2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8);
Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3);
Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16);
Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5);
Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24);
AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);
Replies to responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse (2020; 15);
Clover Project MND, Petaluma (2020; 27);
Ruby Street Apartments Project Env. Checklist, Hayward (2020; 20);
Replies to responses on 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 5);
3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 9);
Steeno Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);
UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2020; 24);
North Pointe Business Center MND, Fresno (2020; 14);
Casmalia and Linden Warehouse IS, Fontana (2020; 15);
Rubidoux Commerce Center Project IS/MND, Jurupa Valley (2020; 27);
Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center MND, Menifee (2020; 23);
First Industrial Logistics Center II, Moreno Valley IS/MND (2020; 23);
GLP Store Warehouse Project Staff Report (2020; 15);
Replies on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 29);
2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34);
Smallwood CV 31
Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30);
Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16);
Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14);
Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);
Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17);
1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28);
1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:
Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46);
Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);
Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);
Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);
Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);
Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24);
Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18);
The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19);
Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);
Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);
27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);
2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11);
Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13);
Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18);
East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22);
Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);
555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);
Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27);
1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19);
Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27);
Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26);
Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);
Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);
Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13);
Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22);
Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9);
Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12);
ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9);
Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14);
Replies to responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19);
PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13);
Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);
Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19)
World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19);
Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12);
West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);
Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11);
Smallwood CV 32
Replies to responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10);
Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);
Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26);
Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34);
1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);
Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14);
SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21);
PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23);
Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);
Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);
Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14);
Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7);
Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36);
We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);
Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);
Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9);
Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35);
Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);
The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);
Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9);
Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22);
North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30);
South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);
Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44);
Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15);
Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);
LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);
Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);
South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);
CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);
2nd replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11);
Replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7);
Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12);
Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21);
Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22);
Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);
Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21);
2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12);
Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);
City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);
Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);
Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);
IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);
Smallwood CV 33
Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);
Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12);
2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30);
At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);
Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10);
Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);
Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57);
750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14);
Replies to responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12);
San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);
CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);
Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18);
Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);
North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11);
Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);
Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23);
Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18);
Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13);
CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23);
Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24);
Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15);
800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18);
2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22);
Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15);
Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21);
Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15);
Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9);
Replies to responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13);
Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27);
Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48);
Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);
The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);
Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin
County (2017; 5);
Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4);
Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5);
San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22);
Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12);
Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12);
MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12);
PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45);
Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);
Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5);
Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16);
Smallwood CV 34
Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13);
Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);
Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5);
Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);
Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14);
Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12);
CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12);
Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9);
City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7);
Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49);
Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25);
Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15);
Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016);
Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6);
Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5);
Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12);
Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);
Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9);
Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18);
Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27);
Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14);
Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41);
Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38);
Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31);
Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6);
Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10);
White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9);
Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9);
Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6);
Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Rosamond (2015; 28);
Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR, Fontana (2015, 9);
Columbia Business Center MND, Riverside (2015; 8);
West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR, Fontana (2015, 10);
Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28);
Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10);
World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR, Moreno Valley (2015, 12);
Elkhorn Valley Wind Power Project Impacts, Oregon (2015; 143);
Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS, Sacramento (2014, 21);
Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);
Replies on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);
Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR, Mojave (2014, 12);
Palen Solar Electric Generating System FSA (CEC), Blythe (2014, 20);
Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9);
Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills impacts + Addendum, Wyoming (2014; 105);
Smallwood CV 35
Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);
Replies on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);
Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18);
Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3);
Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23);
Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16);
Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9);
West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18);
Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49);
Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19);
Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12);
Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31);
Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11);
Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);
Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16);
Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13);
Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13);
Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6);
Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);
Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);
Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);
Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10);
Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);
FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9);
Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6);
Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8);
Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23);
Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; );
Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9);
Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10);
Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp);
Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8);
North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62);
Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects Ism Lancaster (2012; 8);
J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review, Orinda (2012; 14);
Replies on Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II
2012; 8);
Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9);
Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS, near Joshua Tree (2012; 15);
Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR, El Centro (2012; 16);
Ocotillo Sol Project EIS, Imperial Valley (2012; 4);
Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Kern County (2012; 5);
Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program IS/MND (2012; 11);
Smallwood CV 36
Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16);
City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28);
Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9);
Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4);
Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9);
Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13);
Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16);
Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7);
Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6);
Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41);
Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17);
St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);
Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20);
Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12);
Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10);
Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report
2009; 9);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania
County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);
Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);
Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9);
Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for
Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC
and PG&E (2009; 3);
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142);
Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2);
Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3);
The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the
Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by
2020 (2008; 9);
The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the
Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by
2020 (2008; 11);
Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve
Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania
County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);
Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24);
Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66);
Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20);
Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33);
Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15);
Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);
Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37);
Replies to responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5);
Smallwood CV 37
North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);
Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies);
Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18);
Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15);
Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);
Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);
Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);
Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21);
Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10);
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41);
UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23);
Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18);
Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6);
Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23);
Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9);
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7);
Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3);
UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);
Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22);
Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);
California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20);
Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13);
UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR
2001; 26);
Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);
Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5);
Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring
Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10);
Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000);
US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission
regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4);
California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf
Energy Center (2000: 11);
Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands,
prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);
Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce
Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by
the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9).
California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);
Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);
Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation);
Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8);
Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998);
Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28);
Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998);
Smallwood CV 38
San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10);
Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:
Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12);
Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s
Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);
Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);
Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.);
NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory
NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);
Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The
Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);
Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.);
Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.);
Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.);
Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);
Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf
of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of
The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);
State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);
Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);
Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act
Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);
NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and
Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45):
11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);
Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997).
Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The
Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:
Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination
of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society--
Western Section (2001);
Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members
of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process
2001);
Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal
pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);
Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western
Section (2000);
Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation
Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No.
Smallwood CV 39
103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188
scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and
House of Representatives.
Posters at Professional Meetings
Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind
project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March
2015.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated
detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on
Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality
research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye
view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian
fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention,
Austin, Texas.
Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication
as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County,
California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides)
Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White
Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third
Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.
Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry
on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society.
Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars
Dog detections of bat and bird fatalities at wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.
East Bay Regional Park District 2019 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 13 November
2019.
Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5
February 2017.
Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999-
Smallwood CV 40
2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.
Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat
Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017.
Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research
Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015.
From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California.
The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife
Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015.
Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California,
8 July 2015.
Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish
and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015.
Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the
Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013.
Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind
power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite,
California, 12 November 2012.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California,
20 February 2012.
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff
Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission
Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific
Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife
impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011.
Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The
Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife
Smallwood CV 41
Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010.
Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities.
California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010.
Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and
Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the
Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23
February 2007.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind
farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild
Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind
farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan,
4 November 2006.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa
Barbara, 27 October 2006.
Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with
Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006.
Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The
Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006.
Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American
Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.
Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an
impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee,
Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.
American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11,
2006.
Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission,
Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005.
Smallwood CV 42
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19,
2005.
Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The
Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.
Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy
Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004.
Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor
Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October
16, 2004.
Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources
Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004.
The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association,
Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl
Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl
Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating
Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003.
Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor
Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor
Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology,
California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass.
National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000.
Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the
Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Smallwood CV 43
Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western
Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for
Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999.
Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for
Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999.
Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture
and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999.
A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern
California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999.
Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological &
Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University,
Sacramento, November 4, 1998.
No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual
Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.
In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this
episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the
Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997.
Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th
Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists
44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27,
1996.
Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion
Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.
Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference,
Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995.
Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995.
Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape.
1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994.
Smallwood CV 44
Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game
Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis,
February 19, 1994.
Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and
Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar
Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993.
Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium,
Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993.
Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research
Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993.
Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on
Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993.
Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C.
Davis, August 6, 1993.
Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis.
May 1993.
Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy,
California. February 1993.
Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent
system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium,
U.C. Davis. May 1990.
Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento,
California. March 1990.
Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western
Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.
A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April
1986.
The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985.
Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion;
Smallwood CV 45
Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California.
Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany,
March 2015.
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm,
Sweden, February 2013.
Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information
sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa,
Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim,
Norway, 2-5 May 2011.
Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting,
Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.
Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing
perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International
Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.
Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife
Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside,
CA, January, 2000.
Printed Mass Media
Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op-
Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed
to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the
Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Smallwood CV 46
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Radio/Television
PBS News Hour,
FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power
Development, August 2011.
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest
Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009;
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable
Power. 4 September 2008;
KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1
hour. Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998;
Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000;
Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour.
October, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997.
Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review)
Journal Journal
American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist
Auk Journal of Raptor Research
Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports
Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos
Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist
Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology
Smallwood CV 47
Journal Journal
Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist
Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans.
Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health
Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS
Ecology Tropical Ecology
Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J
Biological Control The Condor
Committees
Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area
Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis
MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento
Smallwood CV 48
Other Professional Activities or Products
Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky
Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I
have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist
Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified.
Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White
Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects.
Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for
development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities.
Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas.
Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind
Farm.
Memberships in Professional Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foundation
Honors and Awards
Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987
J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice
Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001
Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984
American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977
CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978
CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982
National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Community Activities
District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007
Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07
Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004
Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002
Davis Visioning Group member
Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City
of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002
Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates
Smallwood CV 49
Representative Clients/Funders
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker EDF Renewables
Blum Collins, LLP National Renewable Energy Lab
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC
Law Offices of Berger & Montague Salka Energy
Lozeau | Drury LLP Comstocks Business (magazine)
Law Offices of Roy Haber BioResource Consultants
Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Tierra Data
Law Office of John Gabrielli Black and Veatch
Law Office of Bill Kopper Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center
Law Office of Donald B. Mooney EcoStat, Inc.
Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Navy
Law Office of Steven Thompson US Department of Agriculture
Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Forest Service
California Wildlife Federation US Fish & Wildlife Service
Defenders of Wildlife US Department of Justice
Sierra Club California Energy Commission
National Endangered Species Network California Office of the Attorney General
Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Fish & Wildlife
The Humane Society California Department of Transportation
Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Forestry
Environmental Protection Information Center California Department of Food & Agriculture
Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Ventura County Counsel
Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) County of Yolo
Seatuck Environmental Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program
Save Our Scenic Area Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District
Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound East Bay Regional Park District
Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk County of Alameda
Alameda Creek Alliance Don & LaNelle Silverstien
Center for Biological Diversity Seventh Day Adventist Church
California Native Plant Society Escuela de la Raza Unida
Endangered Wildlife Trust Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman
and BirdLife South Africa Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc.
AquAlliance Bob Sarvey
Oregon Natural Desert Association Mike Boyd
Save Our Sound Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund
G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry
Emerald Farms Lisa Rocca
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Kevin Jackson
Southern California Edison Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto
Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Nancy Havassy
Northern Territories Inc. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade)
David Magney Environmental Consulting Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc.
Wildlife History Foundation Panorama Environmental, Inc.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation
Ogin, Inc.
Smallwood CV 50
Representative special-status species experience
Common name Species name Description
Field experience
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections
Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections
California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections
Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections
Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County
California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections
Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections
San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections
Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Track surveys in Sumatra
Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications
Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation
Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley
San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Monitoring & habitat restoration
Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non-target captures and mapping of dens
Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring
Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus
distichlus
Captures; habitat assessment
Bats Thermal imaging surveys
California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Numerical & behavioral surveys
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Numerical & behavioral surveys
Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Numerical & behavioral surveys
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Numerical & behavioral surveys
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Large area surveys
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County
Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Numerical & behavioral surveys
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Monitored success of relocation and habitat
restoration
Analytical
Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report.
Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication
Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports
Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Expert testimony