American Canyon City Council
November 19, 2024

1 2
2672
William He, Senior Planner
August 1, 2024

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Please also consider the measures listed below that are quantified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional VMT:

Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary and/or Mandatory) Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing
Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program
Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool
Implement Employee Parking Cash-Out
Provide Community Based Travel Planning
Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program
Implement Telecommute and/or Alternative Work Schedule Program Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
Provide Secure Bike Parking
Designate Zero Emissions Delivery Zones
Implement Shared Vehicle Program (car/bike/E-bike/scooter) Provide Local Shuttle (gas or electric) to Increase Transit Outreach Provide Real-Time Transit Information
Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link).

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact LDR[email protected]. Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

CALTRANS

3 4
2673
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-19 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Local Agencies
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
Response to CALTRANS-1
The commenter provides general introductory remarks, identifies that the comment letter is for informational purposes only, and provides a description of the proposed project.

No environmental issues are raised, and no further response is required.

Response to CALTRANS-2
The commenter commends the City for requiring the development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce employee Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and suggests that the measures in the TDM program should be documented with annual monitoring reports to demonstrate effectiveness.

The measures and effectiveness of the measures within the TDM program would be monitored and recorded as required by CEQA and the City.

Response to CALTRANS-3
The commenter provides various measures that are shown to have different efficiencies in reducing regional VMT.

Several of these measures are already included in MM TRANS-2, such as a commute trip reduction marketing initiative, encouraging ride sharing among project employees, and linking them to rideshare partners working nearby. The proposed project would also provide three bicycle lockers, each of which would accommodate up to four bicycles. Additionally, in compliance with the Cal Green Code the proposed project would provide five electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) stalls, one van accessible EVSE stall, and 19 electric vehicle (EV) capable stalls. However, as concluded in the Draft EIR, even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation, the proposed project would have a significant unavoidable impact related to VMT.

Response to CALTRANS-4
The commenter provides information on required transportation permits for project work that involves the movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways, as well as general conclusionary remarks.

The proposed project would be required to comply with and obtain all applicable permits for oversized or excessive load vehicles.
2674

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2675
SDG 220 Distribution Center Draft Environmental
Impact Report Project
Date *
Name *
Company
Email*
Phone Number*
Please check all that
apply *
Address *
Comments *
File Upload
07/22/2024
Elena
El Puente Comunitario
I own a home in American Canyon
I rent a home in American Canyon
I own a business in American Canyon
I work in American Canyon
None of the above
State / Province / Region
Country
Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Postal / Zip Code
If comments are being provided through the upload of a document, please indicate so. love space a like see more space for seniors and accessibility entrance EPC

2676

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2677
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-23 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Organizations
El Puente Comunitario (EPC)
Response to EPC-1
The commenter indicates they would like to see more space for seniors and an accessible entrance.

The commenter does not raise any environmental issues, and no response is required. All entrances would be required to meet applicable design and accessibility requirements. 2678

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2679
6941-007j
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL CHRISTINA M. CARO THOMAS A. ENSLOW KELILAH D. FEDERMAN RICHARD M. FRANCO ANDREW J. GRAF TANYA A. GULESSERIAN DARION N. JOHNSON RACHAEL E. KOSS AIDAN P. MARSHALL TARA C. RENGIFO Of Counsel MARC D. JOSEPH DANIEL L. CARDOZO SO. SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE 601 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 1000 SO. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION A T TO RNE Y S A T LAW 5 2 0 C A P I T O L M A L L , S U I T E 3 5 0
S A C R A M E N T O , C A 9 5 8 1 4 - 4 7 2 1 ___________ T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1 F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9
k c a r m i c h a e l @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m printed on recycled paper
August 2, 2024
Via Email and Overnight Mail
William He, Senior Planner
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Email: [email protected] Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project (SCH No.
2023100842)
Dear Mr. He:

We are writing on behalf of the Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Environmental Impact Report1 prepared for the SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project SCH No. 2023100842

2. I. INTRODUCTION
The Project, proposed by SDG Commerce 220, LLC
development of a 219,834 square-foot wine storage and distribution center on a

10.45-acre parcel located at 1055 Commerce Court in the City of American Canyon , Napa County. The Project building includes 23 truck doors and approximately 4,400 square feet of office space and would be insulated and refrigerated at approximately 58 degrees Fahrenheit, making it suitable for storage of wine and related products.3
1 City of American Canyon, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project (June 5, 2024 available at
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2023100842/2 2 et seq. 3 DEIR, p. 2-10.

NSRRD

2680
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
The Project site is currently undeveloped land with no structures on-site.

The Project site includes a linear wetland and three isolated wetlands located within the northern portion of the property, and several soil stockpiles that are intended for use at the neighboring SDG Commerce 217 Project are located on the southern portion of the property.4
Napa/Solano Residents have reviewed the DEIR and find that it fails to lacks meaningful details in critical areas, such as air quality, health risk, biological resources, and noise impacts, without which the public and decisionmakers cannot shortcomings, it is deficient as a matter of law because it fails to properly disclose substantial evidence to support the City
impacts and proposed mitigation. These deficiencies render the document inadequate for purposes of compliance with CEQA.

We reviewed the DEIR, technical appendices, and reference documents with the assistance of our expert consultants, including environmental health, air quality and GHG expert Paul E. Rosenfield, PhD. and hazardous materials expert Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. , biological resources expert Shawn Smallwood PhD, and noise expert Luke Watry of Wilson Ihrig, whose comments and qualifications are included as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C respectively.5 The City must address and respond to their comments separately and fully.6
II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Napa/Solano Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential environmental impacts associated with Project development. Napa/Solano Residents includes the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 180, Plumbers & 4 Id., p. 2-1. 5 Exhibit A, Comment Letter from Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise SWAPE Exhibit B, Comment Letter from Shawn Smallwood Smallwood Exhibit C, Comment Letter from Luke Watry Watry 6 ) §§ 15088(a), (c).

NSRRD

2681
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
Steamfitters Local 343, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, District Council of Ironworkers and their members and their families, and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of American Canyon and Napa/Solano Counties.

Napa/Solano Residents supports the development of sustainable commercial and industrial centers where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health and the environment. Logistics centers like the Project should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, biological resources, transportation, and public health, and should take all feasible steps to ensure unavoidable impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial and industrial development truly be sustainable.

The individual members of Napa/Solano Residents and the members of the affiliated labor organizations live, work, recreate and raise their families in and around American Canyon and Napa County. They would be directly affected by the also work constructing the Project itself. They would be the first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards which may be present on the Project site.

They each have a personal interest in protecting the Project area from unnecessary, adverse environmental and public health impacts.

Napa/Solano Residents and its members also have an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for the members they represent. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for industry to expand in American Canyon and Napa County, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live and recreate in the City, including the Project vicinity. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduces future employment opportunities.

Finally, Napa/Solano Residents is concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits.

CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts to the environment.7 It is in this spirit we offer these comments. 7 Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(3); Citizens for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.

NSRRD

2682
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
III. LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA requires public agencies to analyze the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions in an EIR.8 is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope 9 CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project.10
environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR - 11 The EIR public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have 12 As the CEQA Guidelines
EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public 13 Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental alternatives and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.14 The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts 8 PRC § 21100. 9 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (internal quotations omitted). 10 Pub. Resources Code § 21061; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1); 15003(b)-(e); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno
the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be 11 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, at p. 564 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 392). 12 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810; see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v.

Berkeley Jets
the public and officials of environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made). 13 CEQA Guidelines § 15003(b). 14 Id. § 15002(a)(2), (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564.

NSRRD

2683
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
If the project will have a significant effect on the
environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has the greatest extent feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the 15 project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference 16 As the courts have explained, a precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby 17 law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough 18 IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT accurate, complete and stable description of key Project components, rendering the accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative 19 CEQA requires that a project be described with 15 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CCR §§ 15090(a), 15091(a), 15092(b)(2)(A), (B); Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 16 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409, fn. 12). 17 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision-makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). 18 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 405). 19 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond CBE v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85 89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.

NSRRD

2684
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.20 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus 21 that the DEIR fails to disclose and, and therefore analyze, the use of natural gas battery energy storage systems.

1. The DEIR Fails to Consistently Describe the Use of Natural Gas During Project Operation
The DEIR states that the -electric and would not
utilize natural gas during construction or operations. 22 Additionally, the DEIR lectric forklifts would be used during project operation. 23 Based on these assumptions, the DEIR concludes that the Project will not generate GHG emissions from the use of natural gas. However, the DEIR also states that operational vehicles at the Project site will use approximately 13,890 gallons of natural gas per year.24 include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water heaters and other 25 Finally, the DEIR fails to include any mitigation measures that prevent the use of natural gas at the Project site. The inconsistent description of results in a lack of relevant information that
precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation.

Absent enforceable mitigation measures prohibiting the use of natural gas at the Project site, the City must disclose and analyze the potential GHG impacts from its use. 20 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 192 193. 21 Ibid. 22 DEIR, p. 3.5-15. 23 Id. p. 3.2-31. 24 DEIR, Appendix A, pdf. p. 185. 25 DEIR, p, 3.2-52.

NSRRD

2685
August 2, 2024

6941-007j

2. The DEIR Fails to D Battery Backup
Systems
According to the DEIR, the Project will Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic system with Battery Storage 26 However, the DEIR contains no information regarding the type of batteries to be used in the Project, nor does it include information regarding the size of the batteries, the chemical components of each individual battery, or the proposed layout of battery units. This information is critically important for worker safety and on-site and off-site impacts in the event of an accident. Absent this information, the opportunity for meaningful public review is drastically limited.

According to the National Fire Protection Association, battery storage systems can create hazardous conditions from thermal runaway resulting in the release of toxic or flammable gasses and other environmental impacts.27 The conditions leading to thermal runaway can be mitigated using explosion prevention systems or deflagration venting, fire suppression systems, battery management systems, and adequate spacing between battery arrays based on the number and type of batteries used.28 Recent battery system failures have resulted in injuries to first responders29, the release of hazardous gasses30 and fires that are difficult to extinguish.31 The DEIR also fails to provide any information regarding the design of the backup battery systems, including battery types, layout, type of cooling system they will use, and the type of fire detection and fire suppression systems that will be 26 Id. p. 3.2-58. 27 -2. available at
https://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Code%20or%20topic%20fact%20sheets/-ESSFactSheet.ashx 28 ESS Fact Sheet, p. 2. 29 AZ Central, 'Reasons that are still unknown': 30 experts investigate Surprise battery explosion that injured 9 (April 23, 2019) available at
https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2019/04/23/arizona-public-service-providesupdate-investigation-battery-fire-aps-surprise/3540437002/ 30 KSBW Action News, Highway 1 reopened near Moss Landing, shelter-in-place lifted (September 21, 2022) available at https://www.ksbw.com/article/highway-1-reopened-near-moss-landing-shelterin-place-lifted/41302918# 31 AZ Central, Fire crews tend to massive, smoldering battery in Chandler facility (April 21, 2022) available at https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/energy/2022/04/21/fire-crews-tendmassive-smoldering-battery-chandler-facility/7405430001/ NSRRD

2686
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
installed. This information is critical to determine the hazards and the potential environmental impacts posed by the batteries on site. The DEIR must be revised to include information, and an analysis of, the hazards presented regarding the proposed battery backup system at the Project site.

V. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE EXISTING

BASELINE
The DEIR fails to accurately disclose the baseline environmental conditions noise impacts and impacts to biological resources. As a result, the DEIR lacks the necessary baseline information against which to measure noise and wetlands and wildlife
habitat.

The existing environmental setting is the starting point from which the lead agency must measure whether a proposed project may cause a significant environmental impact.32 CEQA defines the environmental setting as the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and regional perspective.33 Describing the environmental setting accurately and completely for each environmental condition in the vicinity of the Project is critical to an accurate, meaningful evaluation of environmental impacts. The courts have clearly stated impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an [environmental review document] must describe the existing environment. It is only against this baseline that any significant environmental 34 A. The DEIR Fails to Establish a Proper Baseline for Existing Noise
According to the DEIR, dominant noise sources in the project vicinity are traffic on local roadways and railroad and airport activity. 35 However, the DEIR fails to include any data to support this statement. The DEIR lacks any 32 ., (March 15, 2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 316. 33 CCR §15125(a) (emphasis added); (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 34 (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952. 35 DEIR, p. 3.11-8.

NSRRD

2687
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
measurement of existing ambient noise conditions at the Project site and at nearby sensitive receptors. Absent baseline noise measurements it is impossible to determine whether the Project will have significant impacts on noise. Mr. Watry states that the operation of this Project along with the SDG 217 project to the north will necessarily result in increased noise at nearby sensitive receptors from increased truck traffic onsite and on Commerce Boulevard.36 -makers [to] effectively determine whether the project complies with noise regulations and identify any potential adverse effects on the surrounding environment and 37 The DEIR does not provide an adequate baseline for noise levels. Absent an accurate environmental setting, the public and the City cannot fully determine the -related increases in noise over existing
baseline conditions.38 Absent an adequate description of the environmental setting, the DEIR is inadequate as a matter of law, for failure to provide a baseline against which to measure Project impacts. The DEIR must be revised to properly set forth the baseline noise measurements to adequately describe the existing noise environment.

B. The DEIR Fails to Establish a Proper Baseline With Respect to Impacts to Biological Resources
setting is based on several
studies and reports prepared for the SDG 217 Project and the instant SDG 220 Project conducted between 2020 and 2023.39 However, Dr. Smallwood found that the DEIR does not include clear information about the surveys that is necessary for adequate review and interpretation of the survey outcomes.40 Such missing information includes
who performed each survey.41 Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood found that the species surveys were improperly conducted. For example, he explains that were conducted in January, when birds do not 36 Watry Comments, p. 3. 37 Id. at 4. 38 Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1122 Due to the inadequate description of the environmental setting for the project, a proper analysis of project impacts was impossible. . 39 DEIR, pp. 3.3-30- 3.3-31. 40 Smallwood Comments, p. 15. 41 Id. p. 20.

NSRRD

2688
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
nest.42 Additionally, he found that the western pond turtle study described in the DEIR improperly focused on the wetland features of the Project site, resulting in a misleading conclusion that western pond turtles do not inhabit the Project site.43 Dr. Smallwood explains that western pond turtle would not visit the site for the small wetlands, but instead, for the grassland sites to breed.44 1. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates the Presence of Additional Special Species at the Project Site
Dr. Smallwood presents substantial evidence from his own site surveys demonstrating that the Project site currently hosts several species, including specialunsupported survey methods.45 Dr. Smallwood conducted two surveys at the Project site in 2019 and 2021.

His observations revealed significantly more vertebrate wildlife species (79 species) than disclosed in the DEIR (46 species). Several of the species he detected included special status wildlife species such as bald eagle, coopers hawk, American kestrel, and northern harrier.46 Dr. Smallwood modeled the pattern in species detections during the surveys he conducted to estimate the average number of species that actually occur at the site but were undetected during the surveys. His models statistically demonstrate that the DEIR surveys missed dozens of species that are likely to occur on the Project site.47
on
wildlife present on the site are greater than analyzed. In summary, Dr. Smallwood concludes, based on the evidence gathered in his surveys, that the Project site provides habitat for numerous special status species that would be adversely impacted by the loss of habitat resulting from the Project. The results of his 42 Id. p. 16. 43 Id. p. 17. 44 Ibid. 45 Id. pp. 12-15. 46 Id. p. 2. 47 Id. p. 13.

NSRRD

2689
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
Dr. Smallwood states that a more realistic representation of species richness at the site could be obtained by implementing multiple survey methods and by repeating visual-scan surveys on various dates throughout the year. As a result of its deficient site surveys, the DEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its analysis of biological baseline conditions and conclusions regarding impacts to biological resources. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to include a legally adequate baseline analysis.

2. The City Failed to Consult All Available Biological Resources Databases to Establish the Environmental Setting
The City relied on California Natural Diversity Database ( CNDDB ) for determining occurrence likelihoods of special-status species. The City failed to consult other major databases such as eBird and iNaturalist. Dr. Smallwood reviewed these databases, and discovered that the actual of list of potentiallyoccurring species is much higher than are reported in the DEIR, finding that 114 special status species have the potential to occur at the Project site as opposed to the 28 reported in the DEIR.48 Sole reliance on CNDDB for desktop review is not supported by substantial evidence. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife cautions that sole reliance on CNDDB is inappropriate as a basis for narrowing a list of potentially occurring species:

Database as current and up-to-date as possible given our capabilities and resources. However, we cannot and do not portray the CNDDB as an exhaustive and comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide. Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an important obligation of 49 48 Id. pp. 22-26. 49 California Natural Diversity Database https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/About.

NSRRD

2690
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
The DEIR thus fails to set forth an accurate biological baseline, which is VI. THE DEIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE, ANALYZE AND MITIGATE

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An EIR must fully disclose all potentially significant impacts of a Project and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.50 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.51 Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.52 proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than 53 In reviewing challenges to an
scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requiremen 54 Even when the substantial evidence standard is applicable to agency decisions to certify an EIR and approve a project, reviewing courts will not proponent in
support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no 55 50 14 CCR § 15064(b). 51 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 52 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 53 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435. 54 Id., Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102. 55 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.

NSRRD

2691
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
A.

Significant Air Quality Impacts
nor operation will cause a
significant impact.56 This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence for several reasons.

First, SWAPE found that the construction health risk assessment prepared for the Project fails to consider age sensitivity factors and fraction of time at home for nearby sensitive receptors. Pursuant to the Risk Assessment Guidelines , in
order to properly calculate
assessment must include age sensitivity factors 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.57
Second, the City failed to conduct an operational health risk assessment for the Project, stating that because [heavy duty] truck trips are less than the 100-truck advisory threshold in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, an operational HRA is not necessary and therefore not analyzed 58 However, SWAPE points out that the State of California recommends
that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the OEHHA guidelines which state that all projects lasting more than six months should be evaluated for the duration of the project.59 Moreover, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the 60 Although the DEIR fails to
disclose the expected Project life, it is reasonable to assume the Project will operate for at least 30 years and thus health risk impacts from Project operation must also be evaluated.61 Construction equipment and trucks accessing the Project site during operations will emit
lung damage, cancer, and premature death. The DEIR improperly omitted 56 DEIR, pp. 3.2-56; 3.2-59. 57 SWAPE Comments, p. 6. 58 DEIR, p. 3.2-58. 59 SWAPE Comments, p. 4. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid.

NSRRD

2692
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
analysis of health risks from DPM, and a revised EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Projectgenerated DPM emissions.

Finally, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the DEIR fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the applicable BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million and lacks evidence to support its conclusion that the health risk would be less-than-significant.62 For these reasons, and based on the analysis and a quantified HRA that
analyzes the adverse health impacts that may be caused by exposure to TACs from must be performed and included in a revised
EIR for the Project.

SWAPE conducted a screening-level HRA, which demonstrate[d] that construction and operation of the Project could result in a significant health risk impact, when correct exposure assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used. 63 Utilizing AERSCREEN64 and applicable HRA methodologies recommended by OEHHA, SWAPE estimates that nearby sensitive receptors will be exposed to an excess cancer risk of approximately 14.6 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years , thereby exceeding the BAAQMD threshold of ten in one million.65 This is a significant health risk impact that is not disclosed in the DEIR, and is not adequately mitigated.

The City must prepare a revised EIR to address the potentially significant health risk impacts described in this comment letter and the attached expert comments. As written, the DEIR is completely deficient as an informational health and does not provide any mitigation to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 62 Ibid. 63 Id. at 9. 64 U.S. EPA, AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model (April 2011), available at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 65 SWAPE Comments, p. 9.

NSRRD

2693
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
In addition, SWAPE provides several mitigation measures in their comments measures are based on the Southern California Association of Governments ;
and recommendations by CARB and the DOJ:

SCAG recommends:

Minimizing unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities; and Requiring contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.

CARB recommends:

Require all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits, such that, emission reductions achieved are equal to or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine; Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy- -oxides
of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022;
Requiring all loading/unloading docks and trailer spaces be equipped with electrical hookups for trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) or auxiliary power units;
Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable; Requiring all service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) used within the project site to be zero-emission; Requiring future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and mediumduty delivery trucks and vans; Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements restricting trucks and support equipment from idling longer than two minutes while on site; and
Require the installing of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading docks and people living or working nearby.

NSRRD

2694
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
The DOJ recommends:

Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations; and
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.66 The City must consider implementation of these feasible mitigation measures in a revised and recirculated EIR for the Project.

B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Potentially Significant Noise Impacts
CEQA requires agencies to conduct noise analyses for projects that consider both the absolute noise levels expected, and the degree noise levels are expected to increase over existing ambient conditions. Noise studies that rely on a single measure that excludes possible significant impacts from noise increases or noise extremes do not receive deference by reviewing courts.

In King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern, the Court of Appeal held that an agency cannot simply rely on compliance with local noise regulations to conclude there will be no significant noise impacts without considering the impacts of increases in noise.67 The County approved an EIR for proposed zoning amendments to streamline oil and gas permitting.68 The EIR included an analysis of noise impacts that determined significance based solely on whether the 65 decibel dayexceeded.69 The Court of Appeal reasoned that the County General Plan did not conclude that all increases in the magnitude of noise are insignificant until the 65 substantial evidence that the magnitude of an increase in ambient noise is 70 noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project in determining the 66 Id. pp. 10-11. 67 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 894. 68 Id. at 829. 69 Id. at 830, 889. 70 Id. at 894.

NSRRD

2695
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
71 The Court of Appeal concluded that an
72 In Berkeley Jets
for expansion of the Oakland Airport because of its reliance on an improper noise standard.73 The EIR evaluated the significance of noise impacts based on whether the estimated level of sound would exceed 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent 74 However, as the Court of Appeal explained, the CNEL metric which averages noise over the course of a day could not be the sole indicator of significant effects from noise because it does not provide a meaningful analysis of will create noise levels over and above the existing
ambient noise level at a given location, and the community reaction to aircraft 75 Therefore, the Court concluded, a revised EIR
with additional study of noise impacts from flights was necessary.76 Here, the DEIR concludes that operational noise would not be significant. However, the DEIR fails to
noise and fails to consider the cumulative noise impacts from nearby warehouse developments which are underway resulting in a failure to analyze and mitigate the

1. The DEIR Fails to Analyze and Mitigate Potentially
Significant Operational Noise Impacts
noise analysis fails to properly analyze the
assesses operational noise sources
impact
criteria.77 Mr. Watry explains that
impact because operational noise sources, including parking lot activity, mechanical 71 Id. 72 Id. 73 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1381 1382. 74 Id. at 1373. 75 Id. at 1381 1382. 76 Id. at 1382. 77 Watry Comments, p. 3.

NSRRD

2696
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
equipment, and truck loading activities, will all operate simultaneously.78 Additionally, as discussed above, the DEIR fails to establish the existing noise environment, preventing an analysis of the relative increase in noise that will result from operation of the Project.

Furthermore, Mr. Watry found that the DEIR fails to account for the cumulative noise impacts that will result from operation of the SDG Commerce 217 project to the north. He explains that with these two new warehouses in operation, truck traffic on Commerce Boulevard could be expected to more than double, potentially resulting in a permanent increase in traffic noise levels over the established threshold, constituting a significant impact.

The DEIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusion that the operational noise impacts will be less than significant because it failed to analyze the magnitude of noise increase from the Project and the cumulative noise impacts of the Project in conjunction with other projects on Commerce Boulevard. operational noise impacts. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to analyze and operational noise impacts.

C. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate
Biological Resources Impacts

1. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze
Loss Impacts and
Impacts Are Potentially Significant
habitat loss is a potentially
significant impact not disclosed by the DEIR. He explains that habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but also in permanent loss of productive capacity.79 His comments include calculations demonstrating the impacts the Project site would have on productive capacity. Dr. Smallwood found that 10.17 acres of grassland-wetland would support approximately 72 nest sites.80 As Dr. Smallwood explains, assuming 1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North American bird species, he calculates that the 78 Ibid. 79 Smallwood Comments, p. 22. 80 Id. p. 29.

NSRRD

2697
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
Project would cost California 100 nest attempts per year resulting in a loss of approximately 319 birds per year denied to California.81 This predicted loss would be substantial and would qualify as a significant impact that is not addressed in the DEIR. The EIR must be revised to appropriately analyze potential Project impacts to wildlife.

2. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze
Collision Impacts and Substantial Evidence Shows the
The DEIR also provides no analysis of wildlife-traffic collision mortality that would result from the Project. The DEIR predicts annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 2,568,115, which would put wildlife at dire risk of collision mortality along all reaches of roadway leading traffic to and from the Project site.82 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.83 Dr. Smallwood calculates that the P traffic would result in 1,407 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year,84 which represents a significant impact to biological resources. The City must prepare a revised EIR for the Project which analyzes and mitigates this impact.

VII. THE CITY MAY NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS TO
The Project requires that the City issue discretionary approvals, including a Conditional Use Permit.85 The Conditional Use Permit requires that the City find that the Project is consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan and will not be materially detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of the public and residents in the vicinity of the Project.86 As discussed above, the significant impacts on air quality, public health, biological resources and 81 Ibid. 82 Id. p. 32. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 DEIR, p. 2-22. 86 American Canyon Municipal Code § 19.42.020 D.1 and D.5.

NSRRD

2698
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
transportation. These impacts also create inconsistencies with General Plan policies which the DEIR fails to disclose and mitigate. As a result of these inconsistencies, the City is unable to make the necessary findings to approve the As an initial matter, the City may not make the required finding, pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.42.202 D.5., that the Project will not be materially detrimental to the general health, safety or general welfare of the public and residents in the vicinity of the Project. As discussed above, the Health Risk Assessment performed for the Project has serious flaws which prevent it from emissions.

The City is also precluded from making the required findings pursuant to Municipal Code section 19.42.020 D.1. because it cannot find that the Project complies with and is consistent with applicable General Plan policies. Analysis of the DEIR reflected in these comments show that the Project fails to comply with several key policies in the General Plan Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element which includes policies relevant
resources.87 For example,
Policy 8.2.1 provides that land use applications for developments located within sensitive habitats, including riparian habitats or habitats within areas occupied by vernal pools, shall be accompanied by sufficient technical background data to enable an adequate assessment of the potential for impacts on these resources and possible measures to reduce any identifiable impacts. As discussed in Dr. the
impacts on foraging habitats for several special status bird species that . Policy 8.4.2 requires preservation, where possible, of the habitat of rare, threatened or endangered species. This policy specifically references the northern harrier, which have been observed foraging at 87 City of American Canyon, General Plan 2019, Chapter 8.0 Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element.

NSRRD

2699
August 2, 2024

6941-007j
the Project site by Dr. Smallwood. The DEIR fails to evaluate the loss of foraging habitat for the northern harrier, let alone make any efforts to preserve such habitat.

Regarding noise impacts, the General Plan includes the following policy:

Policy 11.2.4 requires that new industrial, commercial, and related land uses, or the expansion of these existing land uses, demonstrate that they would not directly cause ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior Ldn of 65 dBA in areas containing housing, schools, health - As explained above, the DEIR lacks the baseline analysis necessary to demonstrate compliance with this policy.

The DEIR fails to address or remedy these inconsistencies with General Plan policies, and the City accordingly may not make the necessary findings to support the required discretionary approvals for the Project.

VIII. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the DEIR for the Project is wholly inadequate under CEQA. It must be thoroughly revised to provide legally adequate These revisions will necessarily require that the DEIR be recirculated for additional public review. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, as described herein, the City may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,

Kevin Carmichael
KTC:ljl
NSRRD

2700

EXHIBIT A
SWAPE

2701
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
July 23, 2024
Tara Rengifo
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project (SCH No. 2023100842) Dear Ms. Rengifo,
We have reviewed the June 2024 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of American Canyon (“City”). The Project proposes to construct 219,834-square-feet (“SF”) of warehouse space, 134 car spaces, and 23 truck parking stalls on the 10.45-acre site.

Our review concludes that the DEIR fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s health risk impacts. As a result, health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed. A revised Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR conducts a health risk analysis (“HRA”) evaluating impacts from exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during Project construction. Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the maximum cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction would be 0.8 in one million, which would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 3.2-56, Table 3.2- 16).

SWAPE

2702
2 The DEIR, however, fails to provide the exposure assumptions or conduct an operational HRA. The DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-thansignificant impact conclusion should be reevaluated in a revised EIR, for four reasons:

First, the DEIR fails to mention or provide the exposure assumptions for the HRA, such as the age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) or fraction of time at home (“FAH”) values. Until the DEIR substantiates the use of correct exposure assumptions, the HRA underestimates the cancer risk posed to nearby, existing sensitive receptors because of Project construction. Furthermore, according to the Risk Assessment Guidelines provided by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the DEIR’s model should have used the following equation:1
1 “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. 8-7 Equation 8.2.4.

SWAPE

2703
3 The DEIR and associated documents fail to include a dose and risk equation to calculate the Project’s construction cancer risks. As such, we cannot verify that the DEIR’s HRA is accurate, and the Project’s cancer risks may be underestimated.

Second, the DEIR relies on guidance provided in the 2005 California Air Resources Board (“CARB”)’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to omit an operational HRA. The DEIR states:
“The traffic analysis estimates the daily HHD truck trips accessing the project site would be 128 trips, which is 64 HHD trucks per day. Since these project HHD truck trips are less than the 100- truck advisory threshold in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, an operational HRA is not necessary and therefore not analyzed in this study. As previously discussed, no TRUs would be operated while on-site. Therefore, risks due to DPM from this level of truck traffic would be less than significant” (p. 3.2-58).

The DEIR concludes that an operational HRA is not required as the projected heavy-heavy-duty (“HHD”) truck trip rate does not exceed the advisory threshold of 100 trucks per day. However, as it is now July 2024, the Project should rely on the most recently updated guidance from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), OEHHA, and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), as demonstrated below.

Third, the State of California DOJ recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the OEHHA, the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.2 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks. Specifically, according to OEHHA: 2
“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.

SWAPE

2704
4 “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).”3 OEHHA also recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).4 While the DEIR fails to
provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Operation of the Project exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, a revised EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.

Fourth, by failing to prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with the CEQA requirements to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”5
According to the DEIR, operation of the Project is anticipated to generate about 372 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions (p. 3.13-12, Table 3.13-2). However, the DEIR fails to evaluate the toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Potentially Significant Health Risk Impact In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.6
The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).7,8 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 3 “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. 4 Ibid., p. 2-4. 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. 6 “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 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. 8 “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.

SWAPE

2705
5 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 operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual particulate matter 2.5 (“PM2.5”) exhaust estimates from the DEIR’s CalEEMod output files, as recommended by the BAAQMD.9
Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA,
we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life. 10 Subtracting the 347- day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 29.05 years.11 The DEIR’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 80 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. 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 daily vehicle trips over Project operation, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: = 80 365 ×
453.6
×
1 24 ×
1 3,600 = . /
Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.00115 g/s. Operation was simulated as a 10.45-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 291- by 145- 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 American Canyon was obtained from U.S. 2022 Census data.12 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.13 Review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 150 meters from the Project site. However, according to the DEIR, the nearest sensitive receptors are residential properties located 850 feet, or approximately 259.1 meters, to the east of the Project site (p. 2-26). Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project operation is approximately 0.458 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 300 meters 9
“California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 8-8. 10 “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. 11 See Attachment A for health risk calculations. 12 “American Canyon.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2022, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0601640. 13 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/documents/epa-454r-92-019_ocr.pdf.

SWAPE

2706
6 downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.0458 µg/m3
for Project operation at the nearest sensitive receptor.

We calculated the excess cancer risk to the nearest sensitive receptor using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by BAAQMD.14 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the CARB recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high-point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and 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”), ASF, FAH, and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows:
14 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, p. 56; see also “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.” BAAQMD, May 2011, available at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20Modeling%20Approac h.ashx, p. 65, 86.

SWAPE

2707
7 Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group
Breathing
Rate
(L/kg-day)15 Age
Sensitivity
Factor16
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Fraction of
Time at
Home17
Exposure
Frequency
(days/year)18
Exposure
Time
(hours/day)
3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 0.85 350 24
Infant (0 – 2) 1090 10 2 0.85 350 24
Child (2 – 16) 572 3 14 0.72 350 24
Adult (16 – 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:
,, = × × × ×
where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) 15 “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_cleanpdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 6; 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. 16 “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. 17 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24; see also: “Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.” BAAQMD, December 2016, available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_cleanpdf.pdf?la=en#:~:text=To%20assess%20potential%20inhalation%20exposure%20to%20offsite%20workers%2C%20 OEHHA%20recommended,for%20an%20eight%2Dhour%20day, p. 4, 5. 18 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24.

SWAPE

2708
8 A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-
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 347-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.30 years of the infant stage of life, the entire child stage of life (2 – 16 years), and the entire adult stage of life (16 – 30 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * *
Construction 0.70 * *
Operation 1.30 0.0458 8.30E-06
Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 * *
Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0458 1.19E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0458 1.84E-06
Lifetime 30 1.38E-05
As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks to infants, children, and adults at the nearest sensitive receptor located approximately 300 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 8.3, 11.9, and 1.84 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk associated with the Project operation over the course of a residential lifetime is approximately 13.8 in SWAPE

2709
9 one million. When summing the Project’s operational cancer risk, as estimated by SWAPE, with the DEIR’s construction-related cancer risk of 0.8 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 14.6 in one million over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) (p. 3.2-56, Table

3.2-16).19 As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the DEIR and associated documents.

Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA:
“EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screeninglevel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. As our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project would result in a potentially significant health risk impact, a revised EIR should be prepared including a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):
“When an updated EIR has been prepared for a project, the Responsible Agency shall not approve the project as proposed if the agency finds any feasible alternative or feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the project would have on the environment.” 19 Calculated: 13.8 in one million + 0.8 in one million = 14.6 in one million.

SWAPE

2710
10 The DEIR is consequently required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the Project’s potential impacts. As demonstrated in the sections above, the Project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts that should be mitigated further.

In order to reduce the DPM emissions associated with Project construction and operation, we recommend the DEIR consider several mitigation measures (see list below).

Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”)’s 2020 RTP/SCS PEIR’s Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures (“PMM-AQ-1”) recommends:20
Minimizing unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities; and Requiring contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project.

CARB recommends: 21 Require all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 or cleaner engines, except for specialized construction equipment in which Tier 4 engines are not available. In place of Tier 4 engines, off-road equipment can incorporate retrofits, such that, emission reductions achieved are equal to or exceed that of a Tier 4 engine; Require all heavy-duty trucks entering the construction site during the grading and building construction phases be model year 2014 or later. All heavy-duty haul trucks should also meet CARB’s lowest optional low-oxides of nitrogen (NOx) standard starting in the year 2022; Requiring all loading/unloading docks and trailer spaces be equipped with electrical hookups for trucks with transport refrigeration units (TRU) or auxiliary power units; Requiring all TRUs entering the project-site be plug-in capable; Requiring all service equipment (e.g., yard hostlers, yard equipment, forklifts, and pallet jacks) used within the project site to be zero-emission;
Requiring future tenants to exclusively use zero-emission light and medium-duty delivery trucks and vans;
Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements restricting trucks and support equipment from idling longer than two minutes while on site; and Require the installing of vegetative walls or other effective barriers that separate loading docks and people living or working nearby.

The DOJ recommends:22
20 Ibid. p. 8 – 9. 21 “Recommended Air Pollution Emission Reduction Measures for Warehouses and Distribution Centers.” CARB, August 2023, available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/CARB%20Comments%20- %20NOP%20for%20the%20%20Oak%20Valley%20North%20Project%20DEIR.pdf; Attachment A, p. 5 – 8. 22 Ibid. p. 8 – 9.

SWAPE

2711
11 Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations; and
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.

The CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.”23 As demonstrated above, we have provided several mitigation measures that would reduce Projectrelated, DPM emissions developed from sources including SCAG, CARB, and the DOJ. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation.

A revised EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, as well as health risk to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible. The revised EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s potentially 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. 23 “Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6, Appendix A, p. 60.

SWAPE

2712
12 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
SWAPE

2713
Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.04 Total DPM (lbs) 63.67123288 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.04 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.219178082 Total DPM (g) 28881.27123 Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.219178082 Construction Duration (days) 121 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.000963326 Total DPM (lbs) 80 Total DPM (lbs) 26.52054795 Release Height (meters) 3 Emission Rate (g/s) 0.001150685 Total DPM (g) 12029.72055 Total Acreage 10.45 Release Height (meters) 3 Start Date 9/2/2024 Max Horizontal (meters) 290.83 Total Acreage 10.45 End Date 1/1/2025 Min Horizontal (meters) 145.41 Max Horizontal (meters) 290.83 Construction Days 121 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Min Horizontal (meters) 145.41 Setting American Canyon Initial Vertical Dimension (meters) 1.5 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 0.03 Population 21,432 Setting American Canyon Daily Emissions (lbs/day) 0.164383562 Start Date 9/2/2024 Population 21,432 Construction Duration (days) 226 End Date 8/15/2025
Total DPM (lbs) 37.15068493 Total Construction Days 347 Total DPM (g) 16851.55068 Total Years of Construction 0.95 Start Date 1/1/2025 Total Years of Operation 29.05
End Date 8/15/2025
Construction Days 226
Construction Operation
2024 Total Emission Rate
2025
Attachment A
SWAPE

2714
Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 * * Construction 0.70 * * Operation 1.30 0.0458 8.31E-06 Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 * * Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.0458 1.19E-05 Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.0458 1.84E-06
Lifetime 30 1.38E-05
The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor SWAPE

2715
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112 07/22/24
15:58:41
TITLE: SDGCommerce220, Operational
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** SOURCE EMISSION RATE: 0.115E 02 g/s 0.913E 02 lb/hr
AREA EMISSION RATE: 0.272E 07 g/(s m2) 0.216E 06 lb/(hr m2) AREA HEIGHT: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet
AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE: 290.83 meters 954.17 feet
AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE: 145.41 meters 477.07 feet
INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet
RURAL OR URBAN: URBAN
POPULATION: 21432
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 1.182 15 150.0 WIN
* = worst case diagonal
SWAPE

2716
********************** 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 0.8881 2525.00 0.2991E 01
SWAPE

2717

25.00 0.9513 2550.00 0.2951E 01

50.00 1.009 2575.00 0.2913E 01

75.00 1.061 2600.00 0.2875E 01
100.00 1.107 2625.00 0.2839E 01
125.00 1.149 2650.00 0.2802E 01
150.00 1.182 2675.00 0.2767E 01
175.00 0.9642 2700.00 0.2771E 01
200.00 0.7492 2725.00 0.2736E 01
225.00 0.6371 2750.00 0.2702E 01
250.00 0.5608 2775.00 0.2669E 01
275.00 0.5047 2800.00 0.2636E 01
300.00 0.4577 2825.00 0.2604E 01
325.00 0.4178 2850.00 0.2573E 01
350.00 0.3835 2875.00 0.2542E 01
375.00 0.3535 2900.00 0.2513E 01
400.00 0.3275 2925.00 0.2483E 01
425.00 0.3045 2950.00 0.2454E 01
450.00 0.2840 2975.00 0.2426E 01
475.00 0.2659 3000.00 0.2399E 01
500.00 0.2496 3025.00 0.2372E 01
525.00 0.2349 3050.00 0.2345E 01
550.00 0.2217 3075.00 0.2319E 01
575.00 0.2098 3100.00 0.2293E 01
600.00 0.1987 3125.00 0.2268E 01
625.00 0.1887 3150.00 0.2244E 01
650.00 0.1796 3175.00 0.2220E 01
675.00 0.1711 3200.00 0.2196E 01
700.00 0.1633 3225.00 0.2173E 01
725.00 0.1562 3250.00 0.2150E 01
750.00 0.1496 3275.00 0.2127E 01
775.00 0.1433 3300.00 0.2105E 01
800.00 0.1375 3325.00 0.2084E 01
825.00 0.1321 3350.00 0.2062E 01
850.00 0.1271 3375.00 0.2042E 01
875.00 0.1225 3400.00 0.2021E 01
900.00 0.1181 3425.00 0.2001E 01
925.00 0.1140 3450.00 0.1981E 01
950.00 0.1100 3475.00 0.1962E 01
975.00 0.1063 3500.00 0.1943E 01
1000.00 0.1028 3525.00 0.1924E 01
1025.00 0.9958E 01 3550.00 0.1905E 01
1050.00 0.9649E 01 3575.00 0.1887E 01
1075.00 0.9357E 01 3600.00 0.1869E 01
1100.00 0.9079E 01 3625.00 0.1851E 01
1125.00 0.8813E 01 3650.00 0.1834E 01
1150.00 0.8560E 01 3675.00 0.1817E 01
1175.00 0.8320E 01 3700.00 0.1800E 01
1200.00 0.8092E 01 3725.00 0.1784E 01
1225.00 0.7875E 01 3750.00 0.1768E 01
1250.00 0.7667E 01 3775.00 0.1752E 01
SWAPE

2718
1275.00 0.7468E 01 3800.00 0.1736E 01
1300.00 0.7278E 01 3825.00 0.1720E 01
1325.00 0.7096E 01 3850.00 0.1705E 01
1350.00 0.6923E 01 3875.00 0.1690E 01
1375.00 0.6757E 01 3900.00 0.1675E 01
1400.00 0.6597E 01 3925.00 0.1661E 01
1425.00 0.6443E 01 3950.00 0.1646E 01
1450.00 0.6295E 01 3975.00 0.1632E 01
1475.00 0.6152E 01 4000.00 0.1618E 01
1500.00 0.6016E 01 4025.00 0.1604E 01
1525.00 0.5885E 01 4050.00 0.1591E 01
1550.00 0.5758E 01 4075.00 0.1578E 01
1575.00 0.5637E 01 4100.00 0.1564E 01
1600.00 0.5520E 01 4125.00 0.1551E 01
1625.00 0.5407E 01 4150.00 0.1539E 01
1650.00 0.5299E 01 4175.00 0.1526E 01
1675.00 0.5194E 01 4200.00 0.1514E 01
1700.00 0.5092E 01 4225.00 0.1501E 01
1725.00 0.4994E 01 4250.00 0.1489E 01
1750.00 0.4899E 01 4275.00 0.1478E 01
1775.00 0.4807E 01 4300.00 0.1466E 01
1800.00 0.4717E 01 4325.00 0.1454E 01
1825.00 0.4631E 01 4350.00 0.1443E 01
1850.00 0.4548E 01 4375.00 0.1432E 01
1875.00 0.4467E 01 4400.00 0.1420E 01
1900.00 0.4388E 01 4425.00 0.1409E 01
1925.00 0.4311E 01 4450.00 0.1399E 01
1950.00 0.4236E 01 4475.00 0.1388E 01
1975.00 0.4164E 01 4500.00 0.1377E 01
2000.00 0.4094E 01 4525.00 0.1367E 01
2025.00 0.4026E 01 4550.00 0.1357E 01
2050.00 0.3960E 01 4575.00 0.1347E 01
2075.00 0.3895E 01 4600.00 0.1337E 01
2100.00 0.3833E 01 4625.00 0.1327E 01
2125.00 0.3773E 01 4650.00 0.1317E 01
2150.00 0.3714E 01 4675.00 0.1307E 01
2175.00 0.3656E 01 4700.00 0.1298E 01
2200.00 0.3600E 01 4725.00 0.1289E 01
2225.00 0.3546E 01 4750.00 0.1279E 01
2250.00 0.3493E 01 4775.00 0.1270E 01
2275.00 0.3441E 01 4800.00 0.1265E 01
2300.00 0.3391E 01 4825.00 0.1260E 01
2325.00 0.3342E 01 4850.00 0.1256E 01
2350.00 0.3294E 01 4875.00 0.1251E 01
2375.00 0.3247E 01 4900.00 0.1247E 01
2400.00 0.3202E 01 4925.00 0.1242E 01
2425.00 0.3158E 01 4950.00 0.1238E 01
2450.00 0.3114E 01 4975.00 0.1233E 01
2475.00 0.3072E 01 5000.00 0.1229E 01
2500.00 0.3031E 01
SWAPE

2719
********************** 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 1.183 1.183 1.183 1.183 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 150.99 meters

IMPACT AT THE
AMBIENT BOUNDARY 0.8881 0.8881 0.8881 0.8881 N/A
DISTANCE FROM SOURCE 1.00 meters
SWAPE

2720
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
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); SWAPE

2721
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.

SWAPE

2722
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 SWAPE

2723
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 nationwide 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 SWAPE

2724
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).

SWAPE

2725
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.

SWAPE

2726
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 DNAPLcontaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

SWAPE

2727
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.

SWAPE

2728
SWAPE

2729
SWAPE

2730
SWAPE

2731
SWAPE

2732
SWAPE

2733
SWAPE

2734
SWAPE

2735
SWAPE

2736
SWAPE

2737
SWAPE

2738
SWAPE

2739
SWAPE

2740

EXHIBIT B

SMALLWOOD

2741

SMALLWOOD

2742

SMALLWOOD

2743

SMALLWOOD

2744

SMALLWOOD

2745

SMALLWOOD

2746

SMALLWOOD

2747

SMALLWOOD

2748
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 39.9
95% CI of visualscan surveys 2019-2024
Actual count of species

SMALLWOOD

2749
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)

SMALLWOOD

2750

SMALLWOOD

2751

SMALLWOOD

2752

SMALLWOOD

2753

SMALLWOOD

2754

SMALLWOOD

2755

SMALLWOOD

2756

SMALLWOOD

2757
1 1

SMALLWOOD

2758

SMALLWOOD

2759
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Days since 14 March 2023
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Mowed Graded
Reference site
SDG Commerce
220 site
Reference site Y = 30.78 0.0320X; r2 = 0.10, P > 0.05
SDG Site 220 Y = 31.85 0.5066X; r2 = 0.59, P = 0.016

SMALLWOOD

2760

SMALLWOOD

2761

SMALLWOOD

2762

SMALLWOOD

2763

SMALLWOOD

2764

SMALLWOOD

2765

SMALLWOOD

2766

SMALLWOOD

2767

SMALLWOOD

2768

SMALLWOOD

2769

SMALLWOOD

2770

SMALLWOOD

2771

SMALLWOOD

2772

SMALLWOOD

2773

SMALLWOOD

2774

SMALLWOOD

2775

SMALLWOOD

2776

SMALLWOOD

2777

SMALLWOOD

2778

SMALLWOOD

2779

SMALLWOOD

2780
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
[email protected]
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
480 professional publications, including:
83 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
371 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

SMALLWOOD

2781
Smallwood CV 2
reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised 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 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

SMALLWOOD

2782
Smallwood CV 3
conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County 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 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 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 beforeafter, 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 esearch 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

SMALLWOOD

2783
Smallwood CV 4
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.

Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines 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, Swains 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.

SMALLWOOD

2784
Smallwood CV 5
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.

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 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 surviv
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

SMALLWOOD

2785
Smallwood CV 6
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.

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. 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

SMALLWOOD

2786
Smallwood CV 7
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.

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

2787
Smallwood CV 8
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, 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.

SMALLWOOD

2788
Smallwood CV 9
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 Agroecological 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, 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

2789
Smallwood CV 10
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, 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

2790
Smallwood CV 11
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. Whitetailed 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, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis.

SMALLWOOD

2791
Smallwood CV 12
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/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/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, 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

SMALLWOOD

2792
Smallwood CV 13
Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Environmental Area, Contract No. Pending.

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.energy.ca.gov/reports/500-04-052/2004-08-09_500-04-052.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., 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. 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 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.

SMALLWOOD

2793
Smallwood CV 14
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway. -20, 22, 24-26.

Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil w
2004:26-27, 29-30.

Environmental Conservation 30:210-211.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002 he Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and nd 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.

SMALLWOOD

2794
Smallwood CV 15
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 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. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p284_smallwood_data_needed_in_support_of_repowering_ in_the_altamont_pass_wra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/r68_smallwood _altamont_fatality_rates_longterm.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p268_ smallwood_inter_annual_comparison_of_fatality_rates_1999_2012.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p246_ smallwood_flodesign_detection_trial_protocol.pdf

SMALLWOOD

2795
Smallwood CV 16
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. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p245_smallwood_et_al_ burrowing_owl density_2012.pdf
Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p238_smallwood_floeesign_draft_study_design_april_2012 .pdf
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. http://www. altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p232_smallwood_et_al_winter_owl_survey_update.pdf Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p231_smallwood_apwra _use_data_2005_2011.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p229_smallwood_et_al_progress_monitoring_ burrowing_owl_burrow_use.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p228_smallwood_et_al_for_nextera_burrowing_owl_distrib ution_and_abundance_study.pdf
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. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p205_smallwood_neher_progress_on_sampling _burrowing_owls_across_apwra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p198_smallwood_proposal_to_sample_ burrowing_owls_across_apwra.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p191_smallwood_comments_on_apwra_monitoring_progra m_update.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p189_smallwood_report_of_ apwra_fatality_rate_patterns.pdf

SMALLWOOD

2796
Smallwood CV 17
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p190_smallwood _review_of_december_2010_monitoring_report.pdf
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. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p183_src_integrated_comments_on_nop.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p180_src_comments_on_dip.pdf Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p174_smallwood_review_of_calwea_ removal_study_plan.pdf
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p168_src_comments_on_m53_mt_draft_study_plan_for_fut ure_monitoring.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monito Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p171_smallwood _kb_removal_rates_follow_up.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_ doc/p161_smallwood_assessment_of_amps.pdf
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. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p153_smallwood_estep_additional_ hazard_ratings.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p158_smallwood_response_to_memo_on_monitoring_costs .pdf
Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p147_smallwood_summary_of_src_ recommendations_and_concerns_1_11_10.pdf
Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p148_smallwood_progress_of_avian_wildlife_protection_p rogram_1_11_10.pdf

SMALLWOOD

2797
Smallwood CV 18
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. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p155_smallwood_src_ turbine_ratings_and_status.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Pass Wind Resource Area. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p154_smallwood_kb_removal_ rates_041610.pdf
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. P144 SRC Comments on 2009 Draft Monitoring Report M21. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p129_smallwood_search_ interval_summaries_supplemental_to_m39.pdf
Smallwood, K. Alameda County SRC document P-111. 6
pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p111_smallwoods_review_of_m32.pdf 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. Alameda County SRC document P-107. 21 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p107_smallwood_review_of_july_2008_ monitoring_report_m21.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document 106. 8 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p106_smallwood_ burrowing_owl_carcass_distribution_around_wind_turbines.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. Alameda County SRC document P-103. 10 pp. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p103_assessment_of_src_recommendations_to_ relocate_rated_turbines.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-102. 4 pp.

SMALLWOOD

2798
Smallwood CV 19
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. Alameda County SRC document P101.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. Alameda County SRC document P-97. 3 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. Alameda County SRC document P-88. 6 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Alameda County SRC document P-76. 19 pp
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 collisionrelated mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.

Alameda County SRC document P-70.

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.

Smallw ueries a
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, 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

2799
Smallwood CV 20
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
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.

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. er the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5.

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 Avi Budget and Organization.

Reports to Clients
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. 2017. 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

2800
Smallwood CV 21
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. 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, 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

SMALLWOOD

2801
Smallwood CV 22
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, 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

2802
Smallwood CV 23
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, 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

SMALLWOOD

2803
Smallwood CV 24
pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellowbilled 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) 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, [email protected] . 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

SMALLWOOD

2804
Smallwood CV 25
(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 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.

SMALLWOOD

2805
Smallwood CV 26
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, 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

SMALLWOOD

2806
Smallwood CV 27
(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 JeffersonMartin 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, 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

SMALLWOOD

2807
Smallwood CV 28
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. 2001. Preliminary Comments on the Proposed Blythe Energy Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on March 15 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 14 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.
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

2808
Smallwood CV 29
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.

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 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, 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.

SMALLWOOD

2809
Smallwood CV 30
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 I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:

The Villages of Lakeview EIR (2017; 28 pp);
Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4 pp); San Gorgonio Crossings EIR (2017; 22 pp);
Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND (2017; 12 pp); MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12 pp); Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14 pp);
Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR (2016; 16 pp); Fairway Trails Improvements MND (2016; 13 pp);
Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28 pp);
Replies to responses on Initial Study for Pyramid Asphalt (2016; 5 pp); Initial Study for Pyramid Asphalt (2016; 4 pp);
Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14 pp); Santa Anita Warehouse IS and MND (2016; 12 pp);
CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR (2016: 12 pp);
Orange Show Logistics Center Initial Study and MND (2016; 9 pp); City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS and MND (2016; 7 pp); Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take (2016, 49 pp); Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR (2016; 25 pp); Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR (2016; 15 pp); Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016); Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 6 pp); Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study (2016; 5 pp); Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02 (2016; 12 pp); Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10 pp);
Jupiter Project IS and MND (2016; 9 pp);
Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18 pp); Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2016; 27 pp);

SMALLWOOD

2810
Smallwood CV 31
Reply Witness Statement on Fairview Wind Project, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14 pp); Fairview Wind Project, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41 pp);
Supplementary Reply Witness Statement Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 38 pp); Witness Statement on Amherst Island Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 31 pp); Second Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6 pp); Reply Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 10 pp); Witness Statement on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 9 pp); Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9 pp);
Replies to comments 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6 pp);
Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015; 28 pp); Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR (2015, 9 pp); Columbia Business Center MND (2015; 8 pp);
West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR (2015, 10 pp); World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR (2015, 12 pp); Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS (2014, 21 pp);
Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp);
Response to Comments on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR (2014, 12 pp); Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS (2013, 23 pp);
Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16 pp); Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR (2013, 9 pp); Cuyama Solar Project DEIR (2014, 19 pp);
Draft Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49 pp); Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR (2013, 19 pp);
Lucerne Valley Solar Project Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013, 12 pp); Palen Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment of California Energy Commission, (2014, 20 pp);
Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9 pp); Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 32 pp);
Response to Comments on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR (2014, 15 pp); Soitec Solar Development Project Draft PEIR (2014, 18 pp); Comment on the Biological Opinion (08ESMF-00-2012-F-0387) of Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3 pp); West Antelope Solar Energy Project Initial Study and Negative Declaration (2013, 18 pp); Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28 pp); Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10 pp); Declaration on Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (2013; 24 pp); Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 11 pp); Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5 pp); Rosamond Solar Project Addendum EIR (2013; 13 pp);
Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR (2013; 13 pp);
Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative

SMALLWOOD

2811
Smallwood CV 32
Declaration (2013; 6 pp);
Soccer Center Solar Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); Plainview Solar Works Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013; 10 pp); on comments to Imperial Valley Solar Company 2
Project (2013; 10 pp);
Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13 pp);
FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR (PP12232) (2013; 9 pp);
Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (3013; 6 pp); Reply to Staff Responses to Comments on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8 pp);
FEIS prepared for Alta East Wind Project (2013; 23 pp); Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; ); Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Map and Rezoning Project DEIR (2013; 9 pp); Analysis of Biological Assessment of Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10 pp);
Declaration on Campo Verde Solar project FEIR (2013; 11pp); Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8 pp); Declaration on North Steens Transmission Line FEIS (2012; 62 pp); City of Lancaster Revised Initial Study for Conditional Use Permits 12-08 and 12-09, Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects (2012; 8 pp); J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review (2012; 14 pp); R on comments to Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal
Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8 pp); Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and the Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9 pp); Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS (2012; 15 pp);
Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR (2012; 16 pp);
Ocotillo Sol Project EIS (2012; 4 pp);
Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2012; 5 pp);
Declaration on Initial Study and Proposed Negative Declaration for the Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program (2012; 11 pp);
Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16 pp); City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28 pp); Comment on Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND (2011; 9 pp); Statement of Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Regarding Proposed Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4 pp); Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood on Biological Impacts of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (2011; 9 pp);
Comments on Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance (2011; 13 pp); Comments on Draft EIR/EA for Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project (2011; 16 pp); Declaration of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., on Biological Impacts of the Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (2011; 7 pp);
Rebuttal Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of Intervenors Friends of The Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area (2010; 6 pp); Prefiled Direct Testimony of Witness #22, K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D, on Behalf of

SMALLWOOD

2812
Smallwood CV 33
Intervenors Friends of the Columbia Gorge & Save Our Scenic Area. Comments on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power Project DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41 pp);
(2010; 17 pp);
St. John's Church Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (2010; 14 pp.); Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 (2010; 20 pp);
Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report (2010;12 pp); Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009: 9 pp);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington. Second Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Dec 2008; 17 pp);
Comments on Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10 pp); County of Placer Categorical Exemption of Hilton Manor Project (2009; 9 pp); 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 pp);
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142 pp); Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 pp + addendum 2 pp); -09-040
(2008; 3 pp);
The Public Utility Com
-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9 pp);
Governor -14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11 pp);
Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7 pp.);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington. Declaration to Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. and Save Our Scenic Area (Sep 2008; 16 pp);
Station (2007; 24 pp);
Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (2008:
66 pp);
Replies to Response to Comments Re: Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008; 20 pp);
Regional University Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (2008: 33 pp.); Cape Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2008; 157 pp.); Yuba Highlands Specific Plan (or Area Plan) Environmental Impact Report (2006; 37 pp.); Replies to responses to comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed

SMALLWOOD

2813
Smallwood CV 34
Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 5 pp);
Mitigated Negative Declaration of the proposed Mining Permit (MIN 04-01) and Modification of Use Permit 96-02 at North Table Mountain (2006; 15 pp); Windy Point Wind Farm Environmental Review and EIS (2006; 14 pp and 36 Powerpoint slides in reply to responses to comments);
Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR (2005; 18 pp);
Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Notice of Preparation of EIR (2004; 15 pp); Negative Declaration of the proposed Callahan Estates Subdivision (2004; 11 pp); Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 9 pp); Negative Declaration of the proposed Winters Highlands Subdivision (2004; 13 pp); Negative Declaration of the proposed Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 (2004; 21 pp);
On the petition California Fish and Game Commission to list the Burrowing Owl as threatened or endangered (2003; 10 pp);
Conditional Use Permit renewals from Alameda County for wind turbine operations in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (2003; 41 pp);
UC Davis Long Range Development Plan of 2003, particularly with regard to the Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23 pp);
Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003: 18 pp + 3 plates of photos);
Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002: 23 pp); Response to testimony of experts at the East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing on biological resources (2002: 9 pp);
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002: 7 pp); Recirculated Initial Study for ;
UC Merced --
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (2002: 5 pp); Replies to response to comments in Final Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2003: 22 pp);
Draft Environmental Impact Report, Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision (2002: 19 pp + 8 photos on 4 plates);
California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002: 17 pp + 3 photos; follow-up report of 3 pp);
Initial Study and Negative Declaration, Silver Bend Apartments, Placer County (2002: 13 pp);
UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001: 26 pp);
Initial Study, Colusa County Power Plant (2001: 6 pp);
Comments on Proposed Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001: 5 pp + 4 photos);
Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Report (1998: 28 pp);
Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement for Issuance of Take authorization for listed

SMALLWOOD

2814
Smallwood CV 35
species within the MSCP planning area in San Diego County, California (Fed. Reg. 62 (60):
14938, San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program) (1997: 10 pp); Permit (PRT-823773) Amendment for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, Sacramento, CA (Fed. Reg. 63 (101): 29020-29021) (1998); Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). (Fed. Reg. 64(176):
49497-49498) (1999: 8 pp);
Review of the Draft Recovery Plan for the Arroyo Southwestern Toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) (1998);
Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999: oral presentation); Negative Declaration for the Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit (1999); Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 10 pp); of the proposed Metcalf Energy
Center (2000);
US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission ary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf
Energy Center (2000: 11 pp);
Siteprepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7 pp);
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 pp).

Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:

Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12 pp); Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8 pp);
Draft Program Level EIR for Covell Village (2005; 19 pp); Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping document (2003: 7 pp.);
NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7 pp);
Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society Western Section (2001: 8 pp.);
Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35 pp.); Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2 pp.); Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7 pp.); 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 pp.); Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society Western Section (2000: 7 pp.);

SMALLWOOD

2815
Smallwood CV 36
State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997); Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10 pp);
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 pp + 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);
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);
-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No.
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. Yenview on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian

SMALLWOOD

2816
Smallwood CV 37
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
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- 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

SMALLWOOD

2817
Smallwood CV 38
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 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

SMALLWOOD

2818
Smallwood CV 39
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.

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.

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,

SMALLWOOD

2819
Smallwood CV 40
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.

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.
-- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.

SMALLWOOD

2820
Smallwood CV 41
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
1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994.

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.

SMALLWOOD

2821
Smallwood CV 42
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; 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.

SMALLWOOD

2822
Smallwood CV 43
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. OpEd 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. 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;

SMALLWOOD

2823
Smallwood CV 44
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 ) 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
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

2824
Smallwood CV 45
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 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

2825
Smallwood CV 46
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 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

2826
Smallwood CV 47
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 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 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

SMALLWOOD

2827

EXHIBIT C
IHRIG

2828
Letter EMY
WI #24-001.xx
July 24, 2024
Kevin T. Carmichael
Associate Attorney
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, California 94080
SUBJECT: SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center
American Canyon, CA
Review and Comments on EIR Noise Analysis
Dear Mr. Carmichael,
As requested, we have reviewed the information and noise impact analysis for the SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project in American Canyon, CA. The project proposes to construct a 219,834-square-foot wine storage and distribution center on a currently empty site. The surrounding properties are primarily other warehouses, with the nearest noise-sensitive receptor being a residence 900 feet east of the project site. This letter comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions, with an emphasis on Section 3.11 Noise, and Appendix H - Noise Supporting Information.

Wilson Ihrig is an acoustical consulting firm that has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966. During our almost 58 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CadnaA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

IHRIG

2829

WILSON IHRIG
SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center EIR
Comments on Noise Analysis

Adverse Effects of Noise1
Learning Outcomes.2 There is a link between acoustical barriers in the classroom such as background noise and speech intelligibility and the scholastic achievement of students. ANSI Standard S12.60-2002 sets acoustical performance criteria and design requirements for classrooms and other learning spaces.

Impaired Cognitive Performance. abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance.

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease. 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/a68672) 2
More information on classroom acoustical criteria and studies related to educational outcomes may be found in ANSI Standard S12.60-2002.

IHRIG

2830

WILSON IHRIG
SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center EIR
Comments on Noise Analysis

Baseline Noise Is Not Properly Established
Despite a section titled "Existing Noise Levels3," no measurements or estimates are provided for the existing noise conditions around the Project site. In King & Gardiner Farms LLC v. County of Kern, the Court of Appeal ruled that an agency cannot rely solely on compliance with local noise regulations to conclude that there will be no significant noise impacts without considering the effects of noise increases. Therefore, without measuring or calculating the existing Ldn/CNEL level using generally accepted methodology, it is infeasible to assess the increase in the Ldn/CNEL level due to the Project.

The existing noise levels at the residence 900 feet east of the Project site are likely relatively low, given the lack of major noise sources within 2,500 feet. The cumulative effect of two new warehouses in the area, including the SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center and the new warehouse directly to the north, could significantly increase noise levels over the existing conditions primarily due to increased truck traffic both on-site and along Commerce Boulevard.

The EIR should be updated to consider the existing noise levels and the cumulative increase over the existing level that will occur from the addition of both new warehouses on Commerce Boulevard. An EIR must properly document the typical baseline noise conditions to determine impact.

Operational Noise Levels Not Properly Calculated
The EIR
comparing each noise level separately to the impact criteria4. This approach is incorrect and underestimates the operational noise produced by the Project, as the operational noise sources, including parking lot activity, mechanical equipment, and truck loading activities, will all operate simultaneously.

The EIR should be updated to combine these sources into a single estimate of on-site operational noise at each sensitive receiver. The same methodology should be applied to the second warehouse north of the Project site, and the cumulative operational noise levels should be compared with the existing noise levels (discussed above) as well as the City criteria.

Cumulative Traffic Increases Not Considered
In Section 3.11.5 Mobile Source Operational Noise Impacts the EIR states, "for the purposes of this analysis, a doubling of the existing ADT volumes would result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels.4" The EIR estimates that the SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center would add 372 daily trips to Commerce Boulevard. While this is not a doubling of the 559 daily trips from the existing Valley Wine Warehouse south of the Project, Section 3.11.6 on Cumulative Impacts fails to consider the additional daily truck trips from the new warehouse under construction directly to the north of the Project site. Since Commerce Boulevard terminates at the Valley Wine Warehouse, all existing traffic along Commerce Boulevard is assumed to be associated with the Valley Wine Warehouse. With these two new warehouses in operation, truck traffic on Commerce Boulevard 3

Section 3.11.5, Environmental Impact Report, SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project, June 2024 IHRIG

2831

WILSON IHRIG
SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center EIR
Comments on Noise Analysis

could be expected to more than double, potentially resulting in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels, constituting an impact.

The EIR should be updated to consider the cumulative traffic noise impacts of both new warehouse Projects on Commerce Boulevard.

Conclusions
There are several errors and omissions in the EIR noise analysis, including insufficient determination of the existing noise environment, improper calculations of operational noise estimates, and a failure to consider the cumulative effects of the two warehouse projects on Commerce Boulevard. Correcting these would potentially identify significant impacts which require mitigation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Luke Watry
Senior Consultant
IHRIG

2832

LUKE WATRY
Senior Consultant
Luke joined Wilson Ihrig in 2016 and is involved in a wide array of projects including building acoustic design, construction monitoring, modal analysis, as well as transit noise and vibration mitigation. He works out of our Seattle office, has been an important team member on several multi-year transit expansion projects, and has experience on the full breadth of project design work from conception to certification. experimental design concepts.

Education
B.S. Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO Project Experience
BNSF Cowlitz River Bridge Replacement Hydroacoustic Monitoring, WA Provided hydroacoustic monitoring and reporting services for pile driving activities during the construction of a new rail bridge.

BNSF Northern Pacific Depot Vibration Assessment, Sandpoint, ID Provided hydroacoustic monitoring and reporting services for pile driving activities in the Pend Oreille River during the construction of a new BNSF rail bridge.

CAHSR EIR/EIS: San Francisco to San Jose & San Jose to Merced Segments, CA Provided noise modeling and mitigation design services for over 120 miles of high-speed rail alignment through densely populated areas of the San Francisco Peninsula, San Jose, Gilroy, and the Central Valley. Noise impact to sensitive wildlife was also analyzed alongside the standard humancentric criteria.

CTA CRCC 7000-Series Vehicle Noise Consulting, Chicago, IL Certified the noise and vibration specifications of a new range of CRRC 7000- specifications included ride quality, exterior vibration, interior noise, and exterior noise across a variety of track types.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, WA
Documented the existing acoustic conditions prior to a renovation of animal research laboratories.

Developed acoustic criteria and control recommendations for the new laboratories and support facilities.

Houston METRO University BRT, Houston, TX
Conducted an environmental noise and vibration assessment for a new 25-mile BRT project.

Provided the client with a technical report outlining the assessment and recommended noise and vibration control measures.

IHRIG

2833

WILSON IHRIG
Luke Watry Page 2
North Mercer Island/Enatai Sewer Upgrade, WA
Provided construction vibration monitoring in accordance with county permit requirements.

Remote vibration monitors were installed at residential properties adjacent to construction sites.

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) On-Call Task, Atlanta, GA Performed a full modal analysis on five bridges owned by MARTA. The results from the field-testing were analyzed and compared against AISC and AASHTO engineering standards.

Microsoft Building 87 Redmond Link Extension Noise and Vibration, Redmond, WA Analyzed the potential for ground borne noise and vibration disruption due to Redmond Link Microsoft Building 87 Redmond Link Extension Ballast Mat Installation, Redmond, WA Provided daily construction quality inspections during the installation of a high-performance ballast mat system. Quality issues identified during construction were resolved with the contractor and the completed installation was approved by the ballast mat manufacturer and Sound Transit.

MicroSurgical Technology, Redmond, WA
Conducted a noise survey in a surgical instrument production facility. Developed a report assessing the workers daily noise exposure and provided noise control recommendations.

Mount Bay Apartments, Tacoma, WA
Provided noise and vibration mitigation services for the design of a mid-rise apartment building located adjacent to a busy rail corridor. Specific recommendations for wall construction and windows were provided to the client.

Nisqually Tribe / Joint Base Lewis-McChord Test Noise Monitoring Review, Olympia, WA Recorded and analyzed rocket artillery being tested at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, adjacent to the Nisqually Indian Community.

Safeway #2870 Claremont / College Avenue Construction, Oakland, CA Drafted reports and addressed noise exceedances during demolition and reconstruction of a Safeway and shopping complex.

San Francisco Department of Public Works On-Call Tasks, San Francisco, CA Implemented construction noise and vibration monitoring for various pipe improvement projects.

Long-term monitors were positioned based on predicted work scheduling; short-term attended monitoring was conducted during high-risk activities such as pile driving.

SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, San Mateo, CA
Generated a site-specific vibration propagation model and analyzed the potential for vibration impacts to ongoing scientific experiments during the construction of a new building on the SLAC campus. Testing included measuring transfer mobilities, determining the vibration response of particle beamline equipment, and vibration generated by construction equipment.

IHRIG

2834

WILSON IHRIG
Luke Watry Page 3
Sound Transit Auburn Parking Garage, Auburn, WA
Measured existing long-term vibration levels inside a medical facility adjacent to the site of a future Sound Transit parking garage. The medical facility contains sensitive equipment including a Varian linear accelerator.

Sound Transit Redmond Link Extension, Redmond, WA
Produced vibration prediction models and mitigation design for future light rail track extending through the Microsoft campus and into Downtown Redmond.

Sound Transit Northgate Link Extension, Seattle, WA
Monitored construction vibration and ground-borne noise created by a tunnel boring machine drilling under the University of Washington and surrounding neighborhoods.

Sound Transit Northgate Link Extension Performance Certification, Seattle, WA Certified the performance of a 5 Hz floating slab constructed in the tunnels underneath the conducted before, during, and after the floating slab construction. One test included measuring vibration levels simultaneously at 16 locations spread across UW and the transit tunnels below.

Sound Transit Rolling Noise Investigation, Seattle, WA
Assisted in developing a computational model of light rail noise. Wheel roughness, rail roughness, and track decay rates were measured for use as model inputs. Wayside noise measurements were used to validate the noise model.

Sound Transit Tacoma Link Expansion, Tacoma, WA
Provided vibration modeling and mitigation design services for a 2.4-mile expansion of streetcar service. Building vibration response testing was conducted at various residences, medical centers, and community buildings to improve modeling accuracy.

Sound Transit, Siemens Mobility LRV Testing, Seattle, WA Certified the noise and vibration specifications of a new range of Siemens LRVs. In addition to certifying ride quality, interior noise, and exterior noise specifications, force density levels of the new vehicles were measured and compared to the existing Kinkisharyo fleet.

State Route 520 Interchange Hydroacoustics, Seattle, WA Provided hydroacoustic monitoring and reporting services for pile driving activities in Lake Washington during the construction of SR520.

Valley Metro, Siemens Mobility LRV Testing, Phoenix, AZ Certified the noise and vibration specifications of a new range of LRVs. The specifications included ride quality, exterior vibration, interior noise, and exterior noise.

IHRIG

2835
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-181 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Development (NSRRD) Note to Reader: This letter includes attachments from Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE), Kenneth Shawn Smallwood (SMALLWOOD), and Wilson Ihrig (IHRIG).

Response to NSRRD-1
The organization provides general introductory remarks, summarizes the proposed project, asserts the Draft EIR failed to comply with CEQA, and expresses general opposition to the proposed project.

The organization referenced three attachments from its consultants. The organization also provided a statement of interest.

Responses to the three attachments are provided as discussed in the following responses. There is no evidence to support the organization’s claims that the Draft EIR failed to comply with CEQA requirements.

Response to NSRRD-2
The commenter states that individual members of the organization and affiliated labor organizations would be directly impacted by the proposed project’s environmental, health, and safety impacts and may work in constructing the proposed project. As such, the organization has an interest in protecting the project vicinity from adverse environmental and public health impacts.

No environmental issues specific to the proposed project are raised, and no further response is necessary.

Response to NSRRD-3
The commenter states that the organization has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. The comment states that environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs and reduce future employment opportunities.

No environmental issues specific to the proposed project are raised, and no further response is necessary.

Response to NSRRD-4
The commenter states that the organization is concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits.

No environmental issues specific to the proposed project are raised, and no further response is necessary.

Response to NSRRD-5
The organization provides general legal background regarding CEQA.

No environmental issues specific to the proposed project are raised, and no further response is necessary.
2836
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-182 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRD-6
The organization asserts the Draft EIR failed to adequately describe the proposed project, and the comment alleges the project description is inconsistent and unstable. The organization further states that use of natural gas during operation was not disclosed or analyzed and that the specifications for the proposed project’s battery energy storage systems were not included.

The comment is noted. The organization’s specific comments in this regard are addressed in Responses to NSRRD-7 and NSRRD-8.

Response to NSRRD-7
The organization asserts that the proposed project does not consistently describe the use of natural gas during project operation. The organization states that the proposed project failed to include any mitigation measures that would prevent the use of natural gas at the project site, and the organization further asserts that the inconsistent description of the use of natural gas results in a lack of relevant information for informed decision-making and public participation.

As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, Section 2.3, Project Characteristics, the proposed project would not use natural gas. Furthermore, as indicated in Section 3.2, Air Quality, and Section

3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing, because it is subject to Tier 3 of the Industrial Use Greenhouse Gas Standards found in Chapter 19.01.061 of the City’s Municipal Code. As further described in Section 3.5, Energy, the proposed project would not utilize natural gas as a building fuel. The commenter mentioned 13,980 gallons of natural gas, as referenced in Appendix B (not A, they made a typo), page 185. This is natural gas projected to be used during construction. When referring to the use of natural gas during construction and operation, the Draft EIR refers to natural gas used for construction equipment, appliances, and plumbing, not vehicles, as is an appropriate characterization when comparing against the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance. However, it should be noted that the use of natural gas powered construction equipment is a conservative assumption as the project applicant has indicated that use of such equipment is unlikely. The Draft EIR does state that, in evaluating potential air quality impacts associated with a project, “energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water heaters and other heat sources.” As is shown in the corresponding Table 3.2-15, the air pollutant emissions associated with energy are zero (because the proposed project is all-electric). As described throughout the Draft EIR, operation of the proposed project would not utilize natural gas, and as such, no mitigation measures would be required related to natural gas.

Response to NSRRD-8
The organization asserts that the Draft EIR does not contain information regarding the type, size, chemical components, or proposed layout of battery units related to the battery storage for the rooftop solar photovoltaic system. The organization alleges that this information is important for worker safety and impacts in the event of an emergency. The organization further states that battery storage systems can create hazardous conditions from thermal runaway and may require cooling, fire detection, and fire suppression systems. The organization asserts that Draft EIR must be revised to include information and analysis of potential hazards from the proposed battery storage system. 2837
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-183 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As demonstrated by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 CA4th, 1053, a CEQA document’s description of the project description should identify the project’s main features and other information needed for an analysis of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. The project description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact” (CEQA Guidelines § 15124). The proposed project is thoroughly described within the Draft EIR and supporting documents, which provide the level of detail needed for the evaluation of the proposed project by the public and decision-makers and for the review of the proposed project’s environmental impacts. As such, detailed plans such as grading plans, floor plans, or elevations are not required to be included in the Draft EIR’s project description and a general description of the proposed project and conceptual plans are allowed. Battery storage specifications are not required components of the CEQA document.

The comment does not provide substantial evidence regarding any significant environmental impact.

The proposed project would provide battery storage in accordance with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6, Section 140.10(b) as described in Draft EIR Section

3.2, Air Quality. The proposed project would comply with all requirements described in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code (CBC), and the California Fire Code, which is a component of the CBC, containing fire safety-related building standards.

Response to NSRRD-9
The organization asserts that the Draft EIR fails to accurately disclose the baseline environmental conditions related to potential noise and biological resources impacts. The comment then provides legal background regarding the existing environmental setting within CEQA.

Responses related to the Draft EIR’s disclosure of baseline conditions for noise and biological resources are discussed under Responses NSRRD-10 and NSRRD-11, respectively.

Response to NSRRD-10
The commenter states the Draft EIR fails to include any data to support that traffic on local roadways and railroad and airport activity are dominant noise sources in the project vicinity. The commenter asserts that absent baseline noise measurements make it impossible to determine whether the proposed project will have significant impacts to noise.

The commenter concedes that the Draft EIR adequately demonstrates that the proposed project would not result in noise levels that would result in a substantial increase in excess of the City’s applicable noise performance thresholds. Furthermore, they do not dispute the assumptions or calculations of the reasonable worst-case construction and operational noise levels identified in the Draft EIR. However, they assert that this does not negate the need to provide evidence that the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase above existing ambient noise levels. They claim that without baseline ambient noise measurements and a comparison of the proposed project’s noise impacts, it cannot be determined whether there would be a substantial increase or not above existing noise levels.
2838
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-184 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx However, the commenter fails to provide any evidence that demonstrates that any potential impact could occur. They do not dispute the evidence presented in the Draft EIR which, by common reason, negates the possibility of a potential substantial increase in existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest receptor. For example, the Draft EIR identifies that the highest calculated construction noise levels would be 40 A-weighted decibels (dBA) day/night average noise level (Ldn) as measured at the exterior façade of the nearest receptor; and the highest calculated operational noise level would be 38 dBA Ldn as measured at the exterior of the nearest receptor, a single-family residence. These noise levels are below typical suburban ambient noise levels, and the Draft EIR correctly identifies that these noise levels are also well below levels that the City considers to be acceptable for residential land uses.

However, it can easily be shown that these noise levels would not result in even an audible increase in interior noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor. For example, based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Noise Levels,2 a combination of standard construction walls, doors, and windows, in accordance with building code requirements for multi-family residential developments, would provide 25 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows closed and 15 dBA or more in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows open.

Therefore, the proposed project’s reasonable worst-case construction and operational noise levels would attenuate to below 25 dBA and 23 dBA Ldn, respectively, as measured in the interior of the nearest residential receptor with the residential windows being open.

These noise levels, by common reason, are so low that they could not be constituted as a substantial increase in existing ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest receptor. For example, the report by Wilson Ihrig upon which the commenter bases their opinion (attached to their letter), states that typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter. Therefore, the reasonable worstcase construction and operational noise levels, as measured at the interior of the nearest residential receptor would be more than 20 dBA below the level of typical conversational speech. Again, the report by Wilson Ihrig upon which the commenter bases their opinion identifies that, for complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Therefore, the proposed project’s reasonable worst-case construction and operational noise levels of 25 dBA and 23 dBA Ldn, as measured inside the nearest residential receptor with windows open, are well below the level that would be considered to have the potential to interfere with speech. It should further be noted that the proposed project’s reasonable worst-case construction and operational noise levels would attenuate to below 15 dBA and 13 dBA Ldn as measured inside the nearest residential receptor with the residential windows being closed.

Therefore, as the Draft EIR logically concludes, due to distance attenuation, the proposed project’s construction and operational noise levels would not result in even an audible increase in interior noise levels as measured at the nearest residential receptor, and therefore could not reasonably result in a temporary or permanent substantial increase in ambient noise levels, as measured at the nearest residential receptor. Therefore, the proposed project’s reasonable worst-case construction and operational noise levels would be less than significant. 2 EPA 550/9-79-100, November 1978.
2839
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-185 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRD-11
To preface this response, as discussed on Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, pages 3.3-30 and 3.3-33, two separate biological consulting firms (Monk & Associates and Pinecrest Research Corporation) assessed the project site between 2006 and 2023. The studies included biological resource reports, habitat assessments, special-status plant and animal survey reports, and an aquatic resource jurisdictional determination. Additionally, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) peer reviewed these biological firms’ work prior to the release of the Draft EIR and determined it to be adequate. In sum, the project site has been substantially studied and there is an abundance of information about its baseline biological conditions.

With that in mind, the Draft EIR used this abundance of information to describe the existing biological conditions in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, on pages 3.3-1 through 3.3-20.

This discussion included (1) soil, typography, and hydrology; (2) vegetation communities and land cover types; (3) sensitive natural communities; (4) common wildlife; (5) special-status species; (6) State or federally protected waters and wetlands; and (7) wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites. Draft EIR Exhibit 3.3-1 provided a soils map, Exhibit 3.3-2 provided a vegetation communities and land cover map, Exhibit 3.3-3 provided a CNDDB special-status species occurrences map, and Exhibit 3.3-4 provided a biological impacts map. By any objective standard, this constitutes an adequate description of the existing baseline conditions of the project site and is supported by substantial evidence. The commenter summarizes findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD, in response to the Draft EIR. These comments are addressed independently in Response to SMALLWOOD-4, -11, and -12.

Response to NSRRD-12
The commenter summarizes findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD, in response to the Draft EIR.

These comments are addressed independently in Response to SMALLWOOD-2 and -19.

Response to NSRRD-13
The commenter summarizes findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD, in response to the EIR. These comments are addressed independently in Response to SMALLWOOD-17.

Response to NSRRD-14
The commenter provides their interpretation of legal requirements and case law. The legal statutes and case law speak for themselves. The general claims and information presented by the commenter regarding legal standards of review are not specific to the proposed project and do not specifically raise any issues concerning the proposed project or the Draft EIR and do not provide substantial evidence to support the claim that the Draft EIR is inadequate. The comment does not raise any specific environmental issue with respect to the proposed project or the analysis in the Draft EIR.

The City finds that the studies relied on in the Draft EIR are adequate and supported and that the Draft EIR provides all required information. Moreover, the City notes that under CEQA, an EIR is required to evaluate a reasonable analysis of impacts. It is not required to perform every study or undertake every investigation suggested. It must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with the information needed to make an intelligent decision concerning a project’s environmental consequences (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15151, 15204(a); San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v County of Merced (2007) 149 CA4th 645, 666.) Because this comment recites 2840
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-186 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx general legal provisions regarding CEQA without any direct application to the proposed project, it requires no further response.

Response to NSRRD-15
The commenter states that the conclusion in the Draft EIR with respect to health risks to sensitive receptors from construction-related impacts is not supported by substantial evidence. To support this claim, the commenter states that the construction health risk assessment (HRA) prepared for the proposed project fails to consider age sensitivity factors (ASF) and fraction of time at home (FAH) for nearby sensitive receptors.

The construction HRA was prepared and followed the methodologies presented in the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA)/California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015), which was adopted in 2015, replacing the previous 2003 guidance manual. As summarized in the Draft EIR and shown in detail in Appendix B, the appropriate ASF and FAH assumptions were utilized. Section 3.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR provides an overview of the HRA assumptions, as well as a summary of the HRA results. Detailed HRA assumptions and results are provided in Appendix B of the Draft EIR. As described more fully therein, the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program 2 (HARP2) was used to automatically calculate the health risk for the proposed project. Use of the HARP2 modeling ensures that the calculational procedures for cancer and non-cancer risk follow the OEHHA 2015 Guidelines and that ASF and FAH parameters are applied correctly. The HARP2 output files, which are included in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, detail how the HARP2 model was applied and document the appropriate HRA parameters for ASF and FAH for exposure.

Age Sensitivity Factors
As described in Section 3.2, Air Quality, as well as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the HRA prepared for the proposed project evaluated cancer and non-cancer chronic hazard risks from construction at the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR), the Maximally Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW), and other sensitive receptors of interest, such as schools. As described in the Draft EIR and shown in the HARP summary report in Appendix B, the HRA prepared for the proposed project does apply the appropriate ASF as recommended by the OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines. An age sensitivity factor of 10 was applied for infants with exposure starting in the third trimester (pre-birth) until age

2. Children from ages 2 to 16 are assumed to be 3 times more sensitive than adults. No adjustments were made for adult exposure for ages greater than 16. As stated in the Draft EIR, “OEHHA Health Risk assessment protocols specify HRAs for residential exposure should start with exposure starting at third trimester and this approach is used for both the Construction and Operational HRA for the proposed project.”
Fraction of Time at Home
As described in Section 3.2, Air Quality of the Draft EIR, the analysis utilized OEHHA guidance for evaluating an individual receptor based on a 30-year residential exposure over a 70-year averaging period.Specifically, the OEHHA guidance recommends using the 95th percentile breathing rate for age groups less than 2 years old and the 80th percentile breathing rate for age groups that are greater than or equal to 2 years old. The construction exposure period is less than 2 years and, as 2841
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-187 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx per OEHHA guidance, exposure was evaluated starting in the third trimester and conservatively evaluated exposure for ages less than 2 years based on the 95th percentile breathing rate. Residents less than 16 years of age are assumed to be exposed continuously 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (fraction of time at home). The Construction HRA considers exposure starting in third trimester of pregnancy and continuing for 11 months.

Accordingly, the Draft EIR and related technical appendices adequately disclosed all assumptions and methodologies utilized in the HRA, including, among others, the ASF and FAH, and accurately evaluated and disclosed the proposed project’s potential health risk impacts according to established standards. The commenter’s assertions related to ASF and FAH are incorrect and unsubstantiated. The comment does not provide any specific evidence related to emissions nor does it raise any issues that require a revision of the Draft EIR, and no further response is necessary.

Response to NSRRD-16
The commenter states that the conclusion in the Draft EIR with respect to health risks to sensitive receptors from project operation is not supported by substantial evidence because the City failed to conduct an operational HRA for the proposed project.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) in the Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) provides guidance, standards, methodologies, and procedures for conducting air quality analyses and was used extensively in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the proposed project.

For purposes of this project, the Draft EIR followed the guidance issued by the ARB in the Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook) that states, “avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week). The ARB recommendation is based on distance-related findings that demonstrate that cancer risks decrease to acceptable levels with distance based on truck volumes in the range of 100 per day.

Lead agencies have discretion to use guidance recommended by other public agencies as the basis for establishing thresholds of significance and making significance determinations. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c). Using the ARB guidance to inform its thresholds of significance, the City found that there was no quantitative analysis required for future cancer risk within the project area as the proposed project is consistent with recommendations regarding truck trips and siting of new sensitive land uses. The traffic analysis in the Draft EIR estimates 64 daily truck trips associated with the proposed project’s operation. Additionally, no TRUs would be operated while on-site.

Accordingly, the proposed project is not considered a substantial source of diesel particulate emissions because the proposed project’s truck trips are less than the 100-truck advisory threshold in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook; and because no TRUs would be operated while on-site, health risks were found to be less than significant. Based on this information, the analysis in the Draft EIR correctly concluded that an operational HRA was not warranted. In light of the information presented in the Draft EIR, the commenter did not provide any substantial evidence to support the claim that an operational HRA should have been conducted. The commenter did not provide 2842
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-188 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx evidence or reasoning as to why the ARB guidance should not be followed. Therefore, the comment does not raise any issues that require a revision of the Draft EIR.

Response to NSRRD-17
The commenter stated that the Draft EIR’s finding of a less than significant impact to nearby existing sensitive receptors as a result of operation of the proposed project is lacking in its evidence and that a revised EIR should include an operational HRA.

Preparation of an operational HRA pursuant to OEHHA guidance is not required under CEQA, nor is it required for any permits or approvals. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed project would generate emissions that are excessive or above acceptable levels that already occur in the environment. As stated in Response to NSRRD-16, the analysis in the Draft EIR cited the recommendations by ARB which are based on risk assessment for distribution centers based on TRU activity and truck traffic. The assessment finds a significant drop off in cancer risk to levels in the 10 to 100 per 1 million range (for the year 2000) starting at 800 feet from the facility (the risk assessment was conducted for TRUs and assumes, based on an emissions basis, similar risks for a facility with truck volumes of less than 100 trucks per day). However, it should be noted that the risk assessment evaluated emission rates for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 and found that as the fleet became cleaner over time, the health risks continued to drop significantly. The estimated risk range versus distance from the center of TRU activity area for the year 2020 was estimated to be less than 10 in 1 million at 650 feet. The closest sensitive receptor to the proposed project is approximately 850 feet in distance. The closest school is more than 1,200 feet in distance from the proposed project. As mentioned, the Handbook benchmarked approximately 100 trucks per day as having a similar risk profile to TRUs. Therefore, because the traffic analysis estimates 64 daily truck trips associated with the proposed project’s operation (which is less than 100 daily truck trips), and no TRUs in operation while on-site, based on ARB guidance and recommendations, the health risks could be reasonably assumed to be 10 in 1 million or less at 850 feet from the proposed project site, and health risks from project operation would be less than significant. Therefore, the comment does not raise any issues that require a revision of the Draft EIR.

Response to NSRRD-18
The commenter stated that SWAPE conducted a screening level HRA (HRSA) which demonstrated that construction and operation of the proposed project could result in significant health risk impacts when correct assumptions and up-to-date, applicable guidance are used.

Please refer to Response NSRRD-15, which outlines how the Draft EIR correctly followed the guidance and recommendations by BAAQMD and OEHHA in preparing the HRA for constructionrelated impacts. The HRA for construction found health risks that are below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in 1 million, and therefore represent less than significant impacts. The Draft EIR adequately disclosed the potential health risks and mitigation is not required.

Regarding operational impacts, please refer to Response to SWAPE-6, which outlines the flawed HRSA analysis utilizing inappropriate emissions and assumptions. The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence to support the assertion that the HRSA demonstrated that the proposed project could result in significant health risk impacts from project operation. 2843
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-189 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRD-19
The commenter states that the City must prepare a revised EIR to address the potentially significant health risk impacts described in the comment letter and in the expert comments attached therein.

The commenter further stated that the Draft EIR is completely deficient as an informational document in failing to disclose the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts to public health and does not provide mitigation to reduce these impacts.

As noted in Responses to NSRRD-15 through NSRRD-19 and Response to SWAPE-6, the commenter has not provided any substantial evidence to support the assertion that the Draft EIR is deficient or fails to disclose the proposed project’s potential impacts. As discussed above, the preparation of an HRA is not required, there is no evidence of potentially significant health risks that have not already been addressed in the Draft EIR, and the submission of general comments from experts does not trigger recirculation. The Draft EIR reflects a reasoned analysis that thoughtfully discloses the project’s air quality impacts and identifies mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to the extent feasible. The Draft EIR is sufficient under the law, no changes are warranted based on the information submitted in this comment, and recirculation is not triggered.

No further response is required.

Response to NSRRD-20
The commenter provided several mitigation measures that the City should consider implementing in order to reduce the proposed project’s health risk impacts from toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions.

As stated on page 3.2-58 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project includes several design features and best management strategies specific to warehouse projects. However, CEQA only requires mitigation to minimize the project’s significant environmental impact (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21002.1(a); State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(3)). CEQA does not require, or grant authority to a lead agency to impose, mitigation for impacts that are less than significant. For example, in North Coast Rivers Alliance v Marin Mun. Water Dist. (2013) 216 CA4th 614, 649, the court held that an EIR was not required to discuss green energy credits as a mitigation measure for energy impacts when the EIR had determined that the project’s energy impacts would be less than significant. The Draft EIR found less than significant impacts from the proposed project’s health risks, and therefore, consistent with CEQA case law and the Public Resources Code, no mitigation measures are required.

Accordingly, the City rejects each of the commenter’s recommendations suggested in this comment as unnecessary.

Response to NSRRD-21
The commenter states that CEQA requires agencies to conduct noise analysis for projects that consider both the absolute noise levels expected and the degree noise levels are expected to increase over existing ambient conditions.

No assertion about this proposed project is contained in the comment and therefore no response is required.
2844
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-190 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRD-22
The commenter references a court case.

No assertion about this proposed project is contained in the comment and therefore no further response is required.

Response to NSRRD-23
The commenter asserts the Draft EIR fails to properly calculate the proposed project’s operational noise and fails to consider the cumulative noise impacts from nearby warehouse developments which are underway, resulting in a failure to analyze and mitigate the proposed project’s significant operational noise impacts.

This comment is a general introductory comment. Please see Responses to NSRRD-24 through 26.

The Draft EIR thoroughly calculated the proposed project’s operational noise and cumulative impacts in Section 3.11. The operational noise was calculated in the Draft EIR by demonstrating that the reasonable worst-case scenario for all sources of operational noise would be less than significant.

The Draft EIR states that there is only one project on the cumulative projects list that is within 1,000 feet of the project site (the project immediately north of this project site). That project is currently under construction and will be completed before this project begins construction. Therefore, there would not be an existing cumulative construction noise impact condition.

Refer to response to comment NSRRD-10 regarding the assertion related to an inadequate baseline noise level comparison of the proposed project’s noise impacts.

Response to NSRRD-24
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR fails to analyze and mitigate potentially significant operational noise impacts because it underestimates the operational noise sources. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR fails to establish the existing noise environment.

The Draft EIR did calculate the reasonable worst-case scenario for all sources of operational noise and demonstrated that impacts were less than significant. However, the commenter does not provide any evidence that the combination of the proposed project’s various operational noise levels would result in a significant impact. Even if the noise sources combined, they would be less than significant. A-weighted decibels are based on a logarithmic scale. They cannot be added or subtracted in the usual arithmetic way.

As is documented in the Draft EIR, the proposed project’s parking lot activity could result in a reasonable worst-case average noise level of 38 dBA Ldn as measured at the nearest receptor; mechanical system operations could result in a reasonable worst-case average noise level of 23 dBA Ldn as measured at the nearest receptor; and reasonable worst-case truck loading and unloading noise levels could average 35 dBA Ldn as measured at the nearest receptor. If these various reasonable worst-case operational noise levels were to occur at the same time over a 24-hour period, they could result in a combined reasonable worst-case operational noise level of 39.8 dBA Ldn as measured at the nearest receptor. This is below the reasonable worst-case construction noise level identified in the Draft EIR that was also demonstrated to result in a less than significant impact as measured at the nearest receptor. Therefore, The Draft EIR correctly identifies that the proposed 2845
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-191 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx project’s combined operational noise levels would not cause ambient noise levels to exceed the City’s exterior substantial increase noise level criterion. Refer to response to comment NSRRD-10 regarding the assertion related to an inadequate baseline noise level comparison of the proposed project’s noise impacts. Therefore, the proposed project’s combined operation noise level would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, and the impact of the combined noise produced by project-related operations to off-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Response to NSRRD-25
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR fails to account for the cumulative noise impacts that will result from operation of the SDG Commerce 217 project to the north of the proposed project site and that traffic noise levels from the combined operations of both warehouses are expected to more than double traffic on Commerce Boulevard.

The commenter does not provide any evidence to support the claim that the proposed project would double traffic on Commerce Boulevard or Commerce Court (note that the proposed project and SDG Commerce 217 are located on Commerce Court) and result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels as measured at a sensitive receptor in the project vicinity. In fact, the commenter does not dispute the proposed project’s calculated average daily project trips or the documented average daily project trips of the project that is located directly south of the project site on Commerce Court. Furthermore, the commenter avoids the fact that Commerce Court ends just south of the project site and that all project traffic will travel north on Commerce Court away from the closest off-site sensitive receptors. The commenter also fails to consider the fact that the SDG Commerce 217 project that is north of the project site has already gone through its own CEQA review and has been approved and is therefore now considered part of the baseline condition.

The Draft EIR shows that documented existing average daily traffic volumes along Commerce Court/Boulevard adjacent to the project are 559 trips each weekday. These existing average daily trips all travel north along Commerce Court and pass the proposed project site continuing on to Commerce Boulevard. In fact, they are the only trips that pass the proposed project site since Commerce Court terminates adjacent to the project site immediately south of the proposed project site. The Draft EIR goes on to identify that the proposed project would result in 372 average daily trips, which would clearly not double traffic on the roadway segment adjacent to the proposed project site. These project trips would not result in even a 1 dBA increase in existing traffic noise levels on the roadway segment adjacent to the project site and, therefore, would result in an increase that would be well below the 3 dBA increase that the Draft EIR identifies would be a substantial increase above existing conditions (See Draft EIR Section 3.11, page 3.11-17).

It can reasonably be deduced that, since the proposed project would not double traffic on the lowest traffic volume segment of Commerce Court, it would similarly not result in a doubling of traffic volumes on segments of Commerce Court that have even higher traffic volumes. In addition, as pointed out previously, those segments are even further from the nearest residential receptors in the project vicinity. Thus, it is evident that the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in existing traffic noise levels as measured at the nearest sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
2846
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-192 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant contribution to existing cumulative traffic noise levels and the commenter does not provide any evidence to the contrary.

Response to NSRRD-26
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusion that the proposed project’s operational noise impacts will be less than significant because it failed to analyze the magnitude of noise increase from the proposed project and the cumulative noise impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other projects on Commerce Boulevard.

Please refer to Responses to NSRRD-10, NSRRD-23, NSRRD-24, and NSRRD-25.

Response to NSRRD-27
The commenter summarizes findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD, in response to the Draft EIR.

These comments are addressed independently in Response to SMALLWOOD-11 and -23.

Response to NSRRD-28
The commenter summarizes findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD regarding wildlife traffic collision mortality, in response to the Draft EIR. These comments are addressed independently in Response to SMALLWOOD-25.

Response to NSRRD-29
The organization asserts that the Draft EIR fails to disclose, analyze, or effectively mitigate the proposed project’s potentially significant impacts on air quality, public health, biological resources, and transportation. The organization further alleges that these impacts create inconsistencies with General Plan policies and that the City cannot make the requisite findings to approve the proposed project’s local land use permits.

Please refer to Responses to NSRRD-14 through NSRRD-28 for a discussion of the Draft EIR’s analysis and mitigation related to air quality, public health, biological resources, and transportation. As noted in those responses, the Draft EIR provided sufficient analysis and mitigation for these potentially significant impacts as feasible. Therefore, the Draft EIR adequately analyzed potential inconsistencies with the General Plan policies applicable to the proposed project. Please refer to Responses to NSRRD-30 through NSRRD-34 for more discussion on the proposed project’s consistency with specific General Plan policies.

Response to NSRRD-30
The organization alleges that the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with Municipal Code Section

19.42.202 D.5, which states that a project will not be materially detrimental to the general health, safety, and welfare. The organization reiterated its previous comments about the alleged deficiencies of the HRA.

Refer to Responses to NSRRD-15 through NSRRD-20 and SWAPE-2 through SWAPE-8, which show that the project-specific HRA provided in the Draft EIR is sufficient for the purposes of CEQA and demonstrates compliance with the applicable federal, State, and local regulations. As such, the City may make the required finding pursuant to Municipal Code Section 19.42.202 D.5 that the proposed project would not be materially detrimental to the general health, safety, or welfare of the public. 2847
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-193 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRD-31
The organization alleges that the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with Municipal Code Section

19.42.020 D.1, which require consistency with applicable General Plan policies. The organization claims that the proposed project would not comply with several key policies in the General Plan’s Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element, relevant to biological resources.

As stated in Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural etc. v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336: A project is consistent with the general plan “if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment… A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy. To be consistent, a [project] must be ‘compatible with’ the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan.” (See also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal. App. 4th 704, 719). Please also refer to Responses to NSRRD-32 through NSRRD-34 and SMALLWOOD-2 through SMALLWOOD-36, which discuss potential impacts related to biological resources. As such, the City may make the required finding pursuant to Municipal Code Section

19.42.020 D.1 that the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan.

Response to NSRRD-32
The commenter summarizes findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD, in response to the Draft EIR.

These comments are addressed independently in Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to NSRRD-33
The commenter summarizes findings from Dr. Shawn Smallwood, PhD, in response to the Draft EIR.

These comments are addressed independently in Response to SMALLWOOD-19 and Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to NSRRD-34
The commenter mentions Policy 11.2.4, which requires that new industrial, commercial, and related land uses, or the expansion of these existing land uses, demonstrate that they would not directly cause ambient noise levels to exceed an exterior Ldn of 65 dBA in areas containing housing, schools, health care facilities, or other “noise-sensitive” land uses. The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR lacks the baseline analysis necessary to demonstrate compliance with this policy.

Please refer to Responses to NSRRD-10.

Response to NSRRD-35
The organization states that the Draft EIR is wholly inadequate under CEQA and must be revised and recirculated.

As indicated in Responses NSRRD-1 through NSRRD-34, as well as responses to SWAPE-1 through SWAPE-13, SMALLWOOD-1 through SMALLWOOD-38, and IHRIG-1 through IHRIG-7, none of the alleged deficiencies are supported by substantial evidence, and, therefore, there is no legal basis to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR.
2848

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2849
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-195 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE)
Response to SWAPE-1
The commenter notes that they reviewed the June 2024 Draft EIR for the proposed project and that their review concludes that the Draft EIR fails to adequately evaluate the proposed project’s health risk impacts. The commenter further notes that health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project may be underestimated and are inadequately addressed, and a revised EIR should be prepared.

Pursuant to CEQA, a general response to a general comment is sufficient (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). The comment alleges general objections to the Draft EIR but does not provide substantial evidence regarding any alleged deficiencies. The City finds that the Draft EIR contains a thoughtful, accurate analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts that complies with CEQA guidelines; therefore, there is no legal basis to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR.

Response to SWAPE-2
The commenter noted that the Draft EIR conducted a HRA to evaluate impacts from exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions during the proposed project’s construction. The commenter stated that the Draft EIR failed to provide exposure assumptions and, therefore, the proposed project’s cancer risks may be underestimated.

As noted in Response to NSRRD-15, the Draft EIR provided the appropriate exposure assumptions as recommended by OEHHA guidance at page 3.2-35. As previously stated and shown in the Draft EIR, the construction HRA that was prepared for the proposed project followed the methodologies described in the Cal/EPA/OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015), which was adopted in 2015, replacing the previous 2003 guidance manual. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, the HRA was prepared using ARB’s HARP2, which is the recommended model for calculating and presenting HRA results because it follows the risk assessment guidance and methodology recommended by OEHHA.

The Draft EIR provides an overview of the HRA assumptions, as well as a summary of the HRA results. Detailed HRA assumptions and results are provided in Appendix B. As detailed more fully therein, the HARP2 modeling was used to automatically calculate the health risk for the proposed project. Use of HARP2 ensures that the calculational procedures for cancer and non-cancer risk follow the OEHHA 2015 Guidelines and that ASF and FAH parameters are applied correctly. The HARP2 output files, which are included in Appendix B, detail how the HARP2 model was applied and documents the appropriate HRA parameters for ASF and FAH for exposure. The methodology used to prepare the HRA, including modeling parameters and assumptions, was properly disclosed in the Draft EIR, as required by CEQA.

Response to SWAPE-3
The commenter notes that the Draft EIR relies on guidance provided in the 2005 ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (Handbook) to omit an operational HRA and should rely on OEHHA and Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance.
2850
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-196 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The commenter did not provide justification or evidence as to why the 2005 ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook is inappropriate for purposes of the analysis, nor did the commenter provide justification outlining why the DOJ document is more appropriate for purposes of the analysis.

Response to SWAPE-4
The commenter notes that the DOJ recommends that all warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to OEHHA and that the HRA follow OEHHA guidance in terms of exposure duration.

As noted in Response to NSRRD-15, the HRA conducted for the proposed project fully analyzed all construction-related impacts and followed OEHHA guidance, including an exposure duration of 30 years to estimate individual cancer risk at the MEIR. As noted in Response to NSRRD-16 and Response to NSRRD-17, the Draft EIR found a less than significant impact related to health risks associated with operation of the proposed project. The Draft EIR followed recommendations and guidance by the ARB in reaching this conclusion. There are no requirements set forth by OEHHA to assess the potential health risks from warehouse projects.

Response to SWAPE-5
The commenter states that by failing to prepare an operational HRA, the proposed project is inconsistent with the CEQA requirements to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” The commenter stated that the proposed project would generate about 372 daily vehicle trips, which would generate additional exhaust emissions and exposure to nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions; however, the commenter states that the Draft EIR fails to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with the proposed project’s operation. The commenter further stated that the Draft EIR did not make a reasonable effort to connect the proposed project’s operational TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, and therefore the proposed project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health.

The commenters’ assertions are unsubstantiated. First, the Draft EIR does include an analysis of the proposed project’s potential health risks from project operation. The analysis in the Draft EIR is based upon ARB guidance and recommendations and found that potential operational-related health risks would be less than significant, which represents a connection to the proposed project’s air quality impacts and likely health consequences. Please refer to Responses to NSRRD-15 and NSRRD-16 for an overview of the screening level analysis that was conducted in the Draft EIR to support these findings.

Second, as described in Responses NSRRD-15 and NSRRD-16, the Draft EIR utilized a screening level analysis to evaluate the potential impacts from TAC emissions associated with the proposed project’s operation. A screening level analysis may be conducted to demonstrate potential health risk impacts (as stated by the commenter themself in SWAPE-6); only if the screening analysis finds unacceptable health risks then a more refined modeling approach should be conducted. The Draft EIR utilized the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a mechanism to conduct a screening level analysis.

Please refer to comment NSRRD-15 and NSRRD-16.
2851
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-197 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SWAPE-6
The commenter provided a screening level HRA (HRSA) for the proposed project’s operationalrelated health risk impacts which was prepared with AERSCREEN. The commenter noted that “the 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.” In other words, the HRSA is a conservative screening analysis that is not meant to portray the health risks associated with the proposed project; rather, it is a screening tool to be used to determine whether an additional level of analysis should be conducted.

AERSCREEN will produce estimates of “worst-case” 1-hour concentrations for a single source rather than the annual average. AERSCREEN is intended to produce concentration estimates that are equal to or greater than the estimates produced by AERMOD with a fully developed set of meteorological and terrain data. As stated, AERSCREEN is an intentionally conservative screening tool. In addition, the HRSA utilized assumptions that serve to make the HRSA findings even more conservative. For example, the mobile source emissions associated with project operation (including the passenger vehicles and trucks) are represented in AERSCREEN as a uniform area source.

Furthermore, the emissions utilized in the HRSA (80 pounds of PM2.5 annually, which are assumed as DPM for purposes of the HRSA) are based on emissions from a mix of passenger vehicles and medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks and are calculated based on an average truck trip length of 35.6 miles. However, emissions from the full truck trip length of 35.6 miles should not be utilized in a health risk analysis because, unlike regional emissions, localized emissions are evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects.

In other words, all the emissions along the entirety of 35.6 miles (the assumed trip length) will not be experienced within the localized area that is analyzed in a HRA (typically 1,000 feet to 0.25 mile around the project site). Therefore, the HRSA provided by the commenter is flawed because it does not accurately reflect the localized emissions that should be evaluated in a health risk assessment.

Because the HRSA is inaccurate, it does not constitute substantial evidence of the proposed project’s effects, nor does it provide substantial evidence that a more refined HRA should be prepared to assess potential operational-related health impacts.

For informational purposes only, a screening level estimate of potential cancer risks associated with the proposed project operation was prepared by utilizing the corrected emission rates. VMT-based DPM from trucks based on a 0.24-mile trip length from the proposed project site combined with trip-based DPM from truck idling and ignition starts is 0.95 pounds annually (not the 80 pounds referenced in the HRSA). When utilizing the correct total DPM emissions (0.95 pounds annually) with the same methodology as presented by the commenter in the HRSA, the total lifetime cancer risk at the MEIR is estimated to be 0.96 in 1 million, which supports the less than significant finding presented in the Draft EIR. For informational purposes, the details of this analysis are presented below:

According to CalEEMod estimates, VMT-based DPM from trucks (as PM10 exhaust) is 85.45 pounds annually and DPM from truck idling/ignition starts is 0.348 pounds annually (as PM10 exhaust). The 2852
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-198 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx truck trip emissions are adjusted based on a 0.25-mile trip length and combined with 100 percent of the emissions associated with truck idling/ignition starts.

The average DPM emission rate is calculated by the following equation:

Emission Rate (grams/second) = (0.95 lbs/365 days) x (453.6 grams/lbs) x (1 day/24 hours) x (1 hour/3,600 seconds) = 0.00001355 grams/second.

The concentration is directly proportional to emissions simulated in AERSCREEN for a 291 meter by 145 meter area source and therefore is calculated with the exact ratio of emission rates. The operational lifetime cancer risk calculated in the commenter's HRSA is then scaled to account for the difference in emission rates as follows:

Corrected cancer risk = 13.8 in a million (HRSA) x (0.95/80) = 0.163875 Construction cancer risk = 0.8
Total lifetime Cancer Risk at MEIR: 0.96 in 1 million
In addition to the flawed HRSA analysis utilizing inappropriate emissions and assumptions, the commenter did not provide any evidence as to why the use of AERSCREEN as a screening tool is more appropriate than the use of the ARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook as a screening tool.

Therefore, neither the HRSA nor the alleged deficiencies of the analysis are supported by substantial evidence, and, therefore, there is no legal basis to reassess the less than significant impacts as outlined in the Draft EIR.

Response to SWAPE-7
The commenter states that the Draft EIR is required under CEQA to implement all feasible mitigation to reduce the proposed project’s potential impacts.

Please refer to Responses NSRRD-15 and NSRRD-16 which outline the less than significant finding for potential health risks related to project operation, and the associated analysis. As stated in Responses NSRRRD-15 and NSRRD-16, none of the alleged deficiencies are supported by substantial evidence, and, therefore, there is no legal basis to require additional mitigation measures.

Response to SWAPE-8
The commenter states that the CalEEMod User’s Guide confirms that the methods for mitigating DPM emissions include the use of “alternative fuel, electric equipment, diesel particulate filters (DPF), oxidation catalysts, newer tier engines, and dust suppression.” The commenter further stated that several mitigation measures would offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate loweremitting design features into the proposed project, which would subsequently reduce emissions from the proposed project’s construction. The commenter states that a revised EIR should be prepared that includes all feasible mitigation measures, and an analysis with mitigation measures incorporated.
2853
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-199 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As stated in Response to SWAPE-7, the health risks from the proposed project’s construction and operation were found to be less than significant. CEQA does not require mitigation measures to be applied to a project with less than significant impacts. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(3)). The commenter did not provide substantial evidence demonstrating why the proposed project’s construction or operational-related health risks are significant, and therefore the recommendation that all feasible mitigation measures be implemented does not have legal basis. Therefore, the comment does not raise any issues that require a revision of the Draft EIR.

Response to SWAPE-9
The commenter provided a disclaimer stating that SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this proposed project. Comment is noted. However, no assertion about this proposed project is contained in the comment and therefore no response is required.

Response to SWAPE-10
Commenter provided health risk calculations. No further response is required.

Response to SWAPE-11
Commenter provided AERSCREEN output files. No further response is required.

Response to SWAPE-12
The commenter (Matthew Hagemann) provided his curriculum vitae. No further response is required.

Response to SWAPE-13
The commenter (Paul Rosenfeld) provided his curriculum vitae. No further response is required. 2854

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2855
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-201 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Shawn Smallwood (SMALLWOOD)
Response to SMALLWOOD-1
The commenter provides background information regarding their expertise and the proposed project.

No environmental issues are raised, and no further response is required.

Response to SMALLWOOD-2
The commenter describes the environmental conditions and lists species observed during his two site visits. Photos and a species table are attached dictating evidence of species observed. The commenter also predicts potential species richness present within the site. None of commenter’s observations, if accurate, would result in revisions to the conclusions in the Draft EIR.

The commenter describes the presence of 18 special-status species observed on-site during his surveys. All 18 special-status species observed by the commenter are avian species. The protection of these species is covered under Draft EIR MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1d with species-specific mitigations for Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl described under MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1c and mitigations for additional nesting bird species, including northern harrier, golden eagle, whitetailed kite, and others, described in MM BIO-1d.

The comment also alleges that a series of reconnaissance surveys cannot alone reveal the inventory of a site’s wildlife community but does not offer alternative suggestions. Additionally, surveys performed for and relied upon in the EIR are based on industry established standards. CDFW has reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding the methodology relating to the analysis. The predictions of potential species used by the commenter are entirely speculative and are not a recognized method for identifying potential species on a site. Speculation does not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15145; 15384).

Response to SMALLWOOD-3
The commenter states that the needed steps in characterizing environmental setting have been completed but the results are misrepresented in the EIR. As addressed above, CDFW reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding the methodology relating to the analysis, including the characterization of environmental settings.

Response to SMALLWOOD-4
The commenter addresses how previous surveys conducted by Monk & Associates and Pinecrest Research Corp did not provide survey details such as names, qualifications, and survey start times and durations and that the species counts attained from these surveys were, in his opinion, “a lot of species to be found during these reconnaissance surveys.” The commenter then notes how FCS detected less species over their survey period than the previously stated surveys and also failed to provide information such as survey duration, weather conditions and the number of biologists.

Please refer to Response to SMALLWOOD-3.
2856
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-202 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SMALLWOOD-5
The commenter recounts FCS’s objectives for reconnaissance surveys and questions whether these objectives were pursued sequentially or simultaneously. If simultaneously, the commenter suggest the biologists would have been disadvantaged by trying to see too much at once and, therefore, achieved an inferior species detection rate than Monk & Associates and Pinecrest Research Corp.

The commenter, in a type of Goldilocks effect, neglects to specify what number he expects to be justified by the survey hours conducted by each company but simply states that the results of Monk & Associates and Pinecrest seem to be too high while FCS’s seems to be too little. It should also be noted that Monk & Associates conducted their surveys prior to development of the southern property, which likely contributed to their larger number of observed species. As noted above, CDFW reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding the methodology relating to the analysis, including the species count attained by FCS.

Response to SMALLWOOD-6
The commenter states that there are issues with FCS’s pre-construction surveys. The commenter states that pre-construction surveys lose their focus for a given species if the surveys are performed simultaneously for burrowing owls, Swainson’s hawks, other nesting raptors, other nesting birds, and pond turtles, and they would have lost focus had they been performed simultaneously for any combination of two of these groups, let alone all four groups. The commenter argues that preconstruction surveys should be performed separately.

CDFW reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding the previous survey methodology used for any species. No further response is required in this respect.

The commenter also alleges that FCS Swainson’s hawk pre-construction survey protocol for the adjacent Commerce 217 site was not met, as no surveys took place during Period V and Period III’s surveys were performed too close together. The commenter argues that this was done to “minimize the likelihood of detection of Swainson’s hawk.” This comment is noted. However, as stated above, CDFW reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding the previous survey methodology used for this species on either site. Furthermore, mitigation applicable to the adjacent Commerce 217 project is beyond the purview of this project’s CEQA documentation. Additionally, the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Protocol) states that “to meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys should be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a project’s initiation.” Swainson’s hawk detection surveys for the Commerce 217 site took place during the first four survey periods (starting in January and ending in April 2023), meeting the Protocol’s requirement.

Finally, the purpose of the EIR is to ascertain biological impacts to the Commerce 220 site (not the Commerce 217 site). Accordingly, Swainson’s hawk protocol-level surveys were conducted of this site by Pinecrest Research Corp Biologist Dr. Christopher T. DiVittorio. Additionally, MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1c in the EIR would require additional Swainson’s hawk surveys, further lowering any potential impacts to this species to less than significant under CEQA. 2857
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-203 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SMALLWOOD-7
The commenter states that Pinecrest Research Corp did not meet the timing requirements for Swainson’s hawk surveys as stipulated in the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Protocol). The commenter states that three surveys were completed during Period IV of the guidelines even though the guidelines state in bold font not to survey during Period IV and only one of the three surveys were completed in Period V.

The commenter is not incorrect in his recounting of the Pinecrest Swainson’s hawk survey timing.

However, as stated above, the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Protocol) states that “to meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys should be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a project’s initiation.” Large areas of vegetation within Commerce 220 were graded between May 29 and July 2, 2023, via an approved grading plan issued by the City of American Canyon in March 2023.

Therefore, the minimum level of protection for this species was met by the Pinecrest surveys performed in Period I, II, III, and IV. The grading that occurred on-site made Period V surveys optional to meet survey protocol. Lastly, MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1b in the EIR would require additional Swainson’s hawk surveys, lowering any impacts to this species to less than significant under CEQA.

Response to SMALLWOOD-8
The commenter states that FCS neglected to mention in the context of the reporting of these special-status species surveys that the SDG Commerce 220 site of the surveys was graded on May 29, 2023. The commenter argues that this grading activity should have been immediately reported to CDFW, and it should have been clearly reported in biological technical reports that were prepared for the Draft EIR.

This comment assumes that FCS did not clearly report this grading activity in technical reports prepared for the EIR. However, the Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) located in Appendix C.1 of the EIR clearly states on multiple occasions that, as part of the SDG Commerce 217 development, much of the Commerce 220 project site was graded between May 29 and July 2, 2023, to procure existing, stockpiled soil for use as clean fill material for the Commerce 217 site. The BRA also states that a Monk & Associates (M&A) authored an Addendum Letter to CEQA Biology Report Discussing Proposed Borrow Site in September 2020 analyzed grading impacts (BRA Appendix D.1). Additionally, an approved grading plan was issued by the City of American Canyon in March 2023 (BRA Appendix D.1). Therefore, grading activity was reported and clearly defined in technical reports for the EIR.

Response to SMALLWOOD-9
The commenter states that FCS burrowing owl surveys did not achieve the minimum standards of CDFW’s (2012) burrowing owl survey guidelines due to the labeling of three burrowing owl surveys as breeding season surveys between January and April 2023 and only one conducted survey between April 15 and July 15, 2023. The commenter also states that FCS is silent on the grading of the project site on May 29, 2023, and should have reported the grading to CDFW.

Based on CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, in California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from February 1 to August 31, with some variances by geographic location 2858
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-204 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx and climatic conditions.3,4 However, breeding has also been documented in December based off the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
5,6 Therefore, in accordance with CDFW, FCS’s use
of breeding season terminology for its surveys was not incorrect.

Although FCS did not conduct two burrowing owl surveys between April 15 and July 15, 2023, Pinecrest Research Corp did. It is the joint findings of both company’s surveys that were used in the negative declaration of burrowing owls on the project site during the time of the surveys. As stated in the Draft EIR (3.3-36), no western burrowing owls have been observed on the project site during the 18 field surveys conducted by FCS and Pinecrest in 2023. However, out of an abundance of caution, FCS still requires MM BIO-1c to mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl. With implementation of MM BIO-1c, impacts to burrowing owl on-site would be less than significant. For comments related to the May 29, 2023 grading on-site, see Response to SMALLWOOD-8.

Response to SMALLWOOD-10
The commenter states that a survey conducted by FCS on January 18, 2023, was called a nesting bird survey. The commenter then states that “birds do not nest in January.” The commenter then questions the qualifications of surveyors who did not note nests within the project vicinity as the commenter “finds nesting birds at every site I survey for nesting birds.” The commenter is correct in stating that most birds do not begin their nesting season in January.

However, species such as the bald eagle do. The bald eagle’s nesting season occurs between January and July/August. As this species was observed by the commenter during his surveys, it is correct in calling a January survey in areas associated with bald eagle a nesting bird survey. Additionally, the commenter questioned the qualifications of a surveyor who did not find nests within the project vicinity. However, the commenter did not note the identification of any nests in his survey report of the property either. .

Response to SMALLWOOD-11
The commenter states that FCS’s comments on western pond turtles are misleading due to the lack of acknowledgment that western pond turtles visit grassland sites to breed and lay their eggs in ground squirrel or pocket gopher burrows.

CDFW has reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding western pond turtle methodology. Additionally, surveys were conducted of the entire project site, not just wetland areas. (See Existing Docuentation on page 3.3-30 and -31 of the Draft EIR). Therefore, although the commenter may find it misleading, FCS’s negative declaration of western pond turtle activity on-site holds true.
3 Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. 4 Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport. Condor 73: 177-192. 5 Ibid. 6 Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. A. Comrack. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 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, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA. 2859
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-205 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SMALLWOOD-12
The commenter states that the surveys performed by FCS and Pinecrest Research Corp targeted Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, other nesting raptors, other nesting birds and western pond turtle simultaneously and using a common methodology and, therefore, the survey guidelines of each taxonomic group could not have been properly implemented.

The inability of surveyors to successfully conduct different surveys at the same time is speculation and, as stated previously, speculation does not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA.

Furthemore, CDFW has reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding survey methodology. Finally, the Draft EIR has proposed mitigation measures for the species (Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, western pond turtle, and other nesting birds) the commenter has questioned using a common methodology for and, therefore, would still mitigate to ensure any potential impacts to these species would be less than signifcant under CEQA.

Response to SMALLWOOD-13
The commenter states that there is no MM BIO-5, although the IS/MND prepared for the SDG Commerce 217 project states there is. The commenter also argues that the pre-construction surveys of all four mitigation measures required of the IS/MND prepared for the adjacent Commerce 217 site failed to meet their scheduling standards relative to the date when ground was broken for project construction.

FCS acknowledges that reference to MM BIO-5 is a typo and has been corrected in Section 4, Errata.

Mitigation applicable to the adjacent Commerce 217 project is beyond the purview of this proposed project’s CEQA documentation. Ground-disturbing work that occurred on the Commerce 220 project site was covered by the IS/MND prepard for the Commerce 217 project. Furthermore, CDFW has reviewed the EIR for this project (Commerce 220) and did not have any comments regarding the proposed failure of scheduling standards related to the date when ground was broken for project construction. See Response to BAGINSKI1 for justification on the continued applicability of MM BIO1a through MM BIO-1g.

Response to SMALLWOOD-14
The commenter states that, not only were the pre-construction surveys for the Commerce 217 project not performed when they were supposed to be performed just prior to ground-breaking on the Commerce 220 project, but as noted earlier, they were not implemented to achieve the minimum standards of their respective survey protocols.

See Response to SMALLWOOD -13 regarding the Commerce 217 mitigation measures and for justification on the continued applicability of MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-1g. See also, Response to SMALLWOOD-7 through Response to SMALLWOOD-11 for how each survey met the minimum standards of their respective survey protocols.

Response to SMALLWOOD-15
The commenter states that Pinecrest Research Corp’s protocol-level rare plant surveys did not achieve the minimum standards of the CDFW (2018) survey guidelines due to a lack of reference site survey, ground disturbance via grading, and simultaneous surveying. 2860
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-206 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx CDFW has reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding rare plant survey methodology. Ground disturbance occurred as permitted for the Commerce 217 project.

Response to SMALLWOOD-16
The commenter described the purpose of literature and database reviews. The commenter also states that FCS included reports by M&A and Pinecrest Research Corp in its literature and database sources but that it also should have referenced the commenter’s “expert testimony” that was provided on SDG Commerce 330 and SDG Commerce 217. The commenter complains that the Draft EIR Exhibit 3.3-3 is uninformative as it does not identify any of the species on the map. The commenter also states that using CNDDB as a screening step is flawed as, according to the commenter, it is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community, and therefore, the Draft EIR’s analysis of special-status species occurrence likelihoods is fundamentally flawed.

The purpose of Exhibit 3.3-3 is not to demonstrate where special-status species are directly, but to demonstrate the breadth of occurrences within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) ninequadrangle map area of the project site. The literature and database review in the Draft EIR was completed based on standard industry practice for the preparation of an EIR, including a preliminary literature search of special-status species with potential to occur in the area, followed by observations by FCS, M&A, and Pinecrest Biologists during numerous field surveys of the site covering the better part of 18 years (e.g., the first field survey of the site occurred on March 1, 2006). The literature search included a search of theCDFW’s CNDDB, which is included in Appendix C of the Draft EIR. The CNDDB search queried all special-status species recorded in the Cuttings Wharf, California 7.5-minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle and its eight neighboring quadrangles. The CNDDB search was used in combination with on-site observations in preparation of the Draft EIR.

The use of CNDDB is a standard industry practice and does not make the Draft EIR’s analysis fundamentally flawed.

Response to SMALLWOOD-17
The commenter argues that a shortfall of the EIR’s Swainson’s hawk analysis is the failure to note that about a third of the cited surveys were completed while Swainson’s hawks were yet to return from their annual migration to Mexico. The commenter argues that another shortfall is the failure to note seven eBird records of Swainson’s hawks on American Canyon wetlands, one as recently as June 28, 2024.

Swainson’s hawk returns northward from Mexico between February and May.7 However, according to the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (Protocol), surveys begin for this species in January to determine potential nest locations. Therefore, surveys conducted before Swainson’s hawk typical return from Mexico are in accordance with Swainson’s hawk survey protocol. Additionally, although eBird is sometimes used as a additonal resource by FCS, its use is not based on standard industry practice for the preparation of 7 eBird. Swainson’s Hawk. 29 May 2023. Website: https://ebird.org/news/swainsonshawk#:~:text=It%20breeds%20commonly%20on%20the%20Great%20Plains%2C%20as,South%20America%2C%20returning%20nor thward%20from%20February%20to%20May. Accessed September 24, 2024. 2861
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-207 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx an EIR. Moreover, the Draft EIR prescribes mitigation measures for Swainson’s hawk to ensure any potential impacts to this speices is reduced to less than significant levels under CEQA.

Response to SMALLWOOD-18
The commenter argues that occurrence likelihoods for several special-status species were identified as low or absent in the EIR but the commenter identified these individuals flying over or next to the project site. These species include northern harrier, white-tailed kite, and peregrine falcon. The commenter argues that reconnaissance surveys are not enough to confirm absence of species onsite and that without protocol-level detection surveys, no species with overlap in range can be ruled out as having the potential to occur on the site.

FCS is in alignment with the commenter’s assessment that northern harrier and white-tailed kite have the potential to be present within the project site. MM BIO-1d of the Draft EIR accounts for special-status species such as the northern harrier, golden eagle, white-tailed kite, and others (including peregrine falcon, if present), and offers protection guidelines to lower impacts to these species to less than significant levels.

Concerning FCS’s assertion that the additional special-status species identified by the commenter are absent from the site, the information in Appendix C to the EIR provides a scientifically sound basis for establishing existing conditions necessary for an analysis of potential species impacted.

Consistent with industry standards and based on the experience of an expert Biologist, habitats were assessed based on a combination of literature review, aerial photographs, soil surveys, and site visits.

Additionally, the Special-status Species Evaluation Tables located in Draft EIR Appendix C.2 evaluates special-status species recorded within the Cuttings Wharf, California 7.5-minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map and its eight neighboring quadrangles by the CNDDB and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI). This table depicts these species' required habitat and potential to occur within the project site based on habitat types observed on-site. As shown in this table, species likelihood of occurrence can be ruled out based on habitat presence on-site. Therefore, the commenter’s assertion that no species with overlapping range with the project site can be ruled out as having the potential to occur is incorrect.

Response to SMALLWOOD-19
The commenter suggests that the term “vagrant” in relation to burrowing owls is meaningless.

The term “vagrant” is used by FCS to describe a species that could disperse or wander into the project site prior to project construction but does not nest on-site. This definition as been added to the EIR, see Section 3, Errata of this Final EIR.

Response to SMALLWOOD-20
The commenter argues that nesting white-tailed kite habitat is more varied than oak and sycamore woodlands and could therefore nest next to or near the site.

FCS agrees that this species could nest in the adjacent eucalyptus trees, as stated on 3.3-17 of the Draft EIR, and MM BIO-1d would protect would protect any such adjacent nests within the applicable buffer distance.
2862
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-208 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to SMALLWOOD-21
The commenter argues that there is no evidence in support of the claim that the project site provides only marginal foraging opportunities to nesting birds.

As stated in the EIR, the project site’s grassland has been significantly disturbed in the past by anthropogenic means and is directly bounded by warehouse developments to the north and south.

This has resulted in habitat fragmentation and lowered habitat suitability to provide more than marginal foragaing habitat for nesting birds. Based on the numerous field surveys conducted between March 1, 2006 and July 2, 2023, there is no evidence to support that the project site provides more than marginal foraging opportunities to nesting birds. FCS maintains its original statement.

Response to SMALLWOOD-22
The commenter argues that several important types of potential project impacts have been inadequately analyzed. These types of impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality. Concerning habitat loss, the commenter argues that FCS makes no attempt to estimate the loss of wildlife productive capacity on-site.

It should also be noted that the protection of productive capacity is not a stipulation held under CEQA and is therefore not a necessary component that will be addressed in this response. Moreover, the vast majority of the habitat present on-site is not considered sensitive by CDFW as it has been significantly disturbed by anthropogenic effects.

Regarding habitat loss, the key State resource agency, CDFW, has been consulted regarding the proposed project and has determined that the mitigation proposed by the project would be sufficient, with minor species-specific alterations, to mitigate the proposed project’s impacts on species and associated habitat. Additionally, the commenter’s formula for speculating habitat loss is not recognized by CEQA industry professionals as a methodology for assessing habitat loss and is based on conjecture. Measures specific to migratory and nesting birds have been incorporated into the EIR as binding mitigation measures (see MM BIO-1a, -1b, -1c, and -1d).

Response to SMALLWOOD-23
The commenter argues that the Draft EIR’s analysis of whether the proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region is flawed and misleading. The commenter argues this is due to a lack of evidence on whether the site functions as a corridor or is located within a corridor. The commenter also argues that no sampling regime or record of wildlife movement patterns was obtained by FCS and that results are speculative. The commenter argues impacts to wildlife movement would be significant and unmitigated.

While the proposed project would result in loss of local wildlife habitat, it would not significantly interfere with wildlife movement. Extensive suitable alternative stopover habitat (e.g., undeveloped) for migratory birds and bats can be found to the east and west of the project site. These areas are less fragmented, isolated, and less prone to disturbance from human activities and therefore may be more desirable for some migratory species.
2863
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-209 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The movement of any terrestrial species or species with limited dispersal ability is likely currently inhibited given the semi-commercial location of the project site. Areas directly south and north of the project site are composed of extensive commercial developments. The project site does not contain habitat features such as riparian corridors that could function as wildlife corridors.

Importantly, the project site is not within a designated wildlife corridor based on the CDFW’s Essential Connectivity Areas geospatial data set, which uses habitat modeling to identify areas of land with value as wildlife corridors. As such, the site is not recognized as being “critically important” as suggested by commenter.

Response to SMALLWOOD-24
The commenter argues that increased wildlife mortality will be caused by the proposed project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region and that this would produce a potentially significant adverse biological impact.

The photographs included in this comment are not from the project site. Also, the traffic study cited in this comment was conducted in Contra Costa County and the commenter includes numerous unsupported assumptions in applying that study’s conclusions to the proposed project. The mathematical analysis provided is based on speculative assumptions from non-related projects outside of Napa County.

As discussed above, the proposed project is not within a designated wildlife corridor. Instead, the project site is bounded by existing industrial development that limits species movement on-site. The site plan and design of the proposed project would not encourage species to traverse internal roadways to reach habitat. The proposed project’s traffic generation would amount to only a small portion of existing traffic in the project vicinity and greater region. As such, the operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts related to wildlife traffic fatalities.

See Response to SMALLWOOD-23.

Response to SMALLWOOD-25
The commenter argues that FCS’s geographic scope of analysis is conclusory and inaccurate due to traffic fatalities and the loss of foraging opportunities leading to Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite nest abandonment.

See Response to SMALLWOOD-24 regarding wildlife traffic facitilities. To see how impacts to Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite are being mitigated, see Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to SMALLWOOD-26
The commenter argues that the Draft EIR provides no explanation of how implementing the particular requirements of the laws and regulations it cites would ensure that the proposed project’s incremental contributions to cumulative effects would not be cumulatively considerable.

Compliance with relevant regulatory standards is an appropriate basis for determining that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental impact. (Tracy First v City of Tracy (2009) 177 CA4th 912). The commenter incorrectly assumes that the Draft EIR only views residual impacts unsuccessfully mitigated as potential cumulative impacts. This is speculation and not supported by the Cumulative Impacts analysis. The commenter also argues that FCS does not address how 2864
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-210 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx implementation of laws and regulations would contribute to cumulative effects not being cumulatively considerable. However, EIR Impact Bio-4 goes into detail regarding how the proposed project meets any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. This is then referenced in the Local Policies and Ordinances section of the Cumulative Impacts analysis. Therefore, the Draft EIR does justify how the proposed project’s incremental contributions to cumulative effects would not be cumulatively considerable.

Response to SMALLWOOD-27
The commenter argues that implementation of cited policies and regulations are not effective as changes in species abundance and richness still occur with the implementation of development. The commenter then argues this point through survey models done by the commenter.

The study of species richness and abundance post-development is not required by any regulation or industry established standard. CDFW has reviewed the EIR and did not have any comments regarding the methodology relating to the Cumulative Impacts analysis. The predictions of the loss of species richness and abundance used by the commenter are not a recognized method for identifying the cumulative effects of project site development. Speculation does not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a)).

Response to SMALLWOOD-28
The commenter argues that wildlife fatalities via traffic would be very large due to the proposed project and that his same calculations should be extended to the other warehouses in the City of American Canyon to predict the cumulative traffic toll to wildlife in this region.

See Response to SMALLWOOD-24 regarding traffic facillities.

Response to SMALLWOOD-29
The commenter argues that MM BIO-1a is hard to take seriously as it was not enforced by the City prior to grading SDG Commerce 217 and the mitigation would not avoid the reduction in productive capacity of Swainson’s hawks caused by the project’s habitat destruction.

Enforcement of mitigation measures for previously certified environmental documents is beyond the purview of this Draft EIR. Please see Response to SMALLWOOD-22 for reductions to productive capacity caused by habitat loss.

Response to SMALLWOOD-30
The commenter argues that MM BIO-1b would not avoid the reduction in productive capacity of Swainson’s hawks caused by the proposed project’s habitat destruction.

See Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to SMALLWOOD-31
The commenter argues that MM BIO-1c is hard to take seriously as it was not enforced by the City prior to grading Commerce 217 and the mitigation would not avoid the reduction in productive capacity of burrowing owl caused by the proposed project’s habitat destruction. 2865
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-211 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Enforcement of mitigation measures for previously certified environmental documents is beyond the purview of this Draft EIR. See Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to SMALLWOOD-32
The commenter argues that MM BIO-1d is hard to take seriously as it was not enforced by the City prior to grading Commerce 217 and he is flabbergasted that the surveyor did not identify any nesting birds. The commenter also argues that the mitigation would not avoid the reduction in productive capacity of nesting birds caused by the proposed project’s habitat destruction.

Enforcement of mitigation measures for previously certified environmental documents is beyond the purview of this Draft EIR. See Response to SMALLWOOD-10 for nesting bird comment. Please see Response to SMALLWOOD-22 for productive capacity comment.

Response to SMALLWOOD-33
The commenter argues that MM BIO-1e is hard to take seriously as it was not enforced by the City prior to grading Commerce 217 and the mitigation would not avoid the reduction in productive capacity of roosting bats caused by the proposed project’s habitat destruction.

Enforcement of mitigation measures for previously certified environmental documents is beyond the purview of this Draft EIR. See Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to SMALLWOOD-34
The commenter argues that MM BIO-1f is hard to take seriously as it was not enforced by the City prior to grading Commerce 217 and the mitigation would not avoid the reduction in productive capacity of western pond turtle caused by the proposed project’s habitat destruction.

Enforcement of mitigation measures for previously certified environmental documents is beyond the purview of this EIR. See Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to SMALLWOOD-35
The commenter argues that MM BIO-1g is hard to take seriously as it was not enforced by the City prior to grading Commerce 217 and the mitigation would not avoid the reduction in productive capacity of monarch butterfly caused by the proposed project’s habitat destruction.

Enforcement of mitigation measures for previously certified environmental documents is beyond the purview of this EIR. See Response to SMALLWOOD-22.

Response to SMALLWOOD-36
The commenter argues that compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the proposed project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region, and mitigation is suggested.

Please see Response to SMALLWOOD-24.

Response to SMALLWOOD-37
The commenter (Kenneth Shawn Smallwood) provided his curriculum vitae. No response is required. 2866

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2867
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-213 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Wilson Ihrig (IHRIG)
Response to IHRIG-1
The commenter provides background information regarding their expertise and the proposed project.

No environmental issues are raised, and no response is required.

Response to IHRIG-2
The commenter provides a description of the adverse effects of noise, including learning outcomes, cognitive performance, hearing loss, speech interference, sleep disturbance, and other physiological effects.

No project-specific environmental issues are raised, and no response is required.

Response to IHRIG-3
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR should be updated to consider the existing noise levels and the cumulative increase over the existing level that would occur from the addition of both new warehouses on Commerce Court. Furthermore, they state that the Draft EIR must properly document the typical baseline noise conditions to determine impact.

The commenter does not provide any evidence that existing ambient noise levels are so low that the proposed project’s construction or operational noise levels could result in a potential substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Please refer to Response to NSRRD-10, -23, -24, and -25. As indicated therein, the Draft EIR noise analysis includes sufficient determination of how the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared to existing conditions as measured at the nearest sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Response to IHRIG-4
The commenter asserts the EIR should be updated to combine operational noise sources into a single estimate of on-site operational noise at each sensitive receiver. The same methodology should be applied to the second warehouse north of the project site, and the cumulative operational noise levels should be compared with the existing noise levels (discussed above) as well as the City’s criteria.

The commenter does not provide any evidence to support their implied conclusion that a significant operational noise impact could be potential with implementation of the proposed project. Please refer to Response to NSRRD-10, -23, -24, and -25. As indicated therein, the Draft EIR noise analysis includes sufficient determination of how the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared to existing conditions, but rather, it provides a conservative reasonable worst-case calculation of combined operational noise estimates as measured at the nearest receptors and demonstrates that the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels as measured at the nearest sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.
2868
City of American Canyon—SDG Commerce 220 Distribution Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
2-214 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5639/56390001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/56390001 Sec02-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to IHRIG-5
The commenter asserts that the EIR should be updated to consider the cumulative traffic noise impacts of both new warehouse projects on Commerce Court.

The commenter does not provide any evidence to support their implied conclusion that a significant impact could be potential with implementation of the proposed project. Please refer to Response to NSRRD-10, -23, -24, and -25. As indicated therein, the Draft EIR noise analysis includes sufficient determination of how the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared to existing conditions, but rather it provides a conservative reasonable worstcase calculation of that demonstrate that project-related traffic would not result in a substantial contribution to a cumulative traffic noise impact as measured at the nearest sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Response to IHRIG-6
The commenter provides a summary of their previous assertions that there are several errors and omissions in the EIR noise analysis, including insufficient determination of the existing noise environment, improper calculations of operational noise estimates, and a failure to consider the cumulative effects of the two warehouse projects on Commerce Court and that correcting these would potentially identify significant impacts which require mitigation.

The commenter does not provide any evidence to support their implied conclusion that a potentially significant impact could occur with implementation of the proposed project. Refer to Response to NSRRD-21, -22, -23, -24, -25, 2-6, and -34, as well as Response to IHRIG-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5. Please refer to Response to NSRRD-10, -23, -24, and -25. As indicated therein, the Draft EIR noise analysis includes sufficient determination of how the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels compared to existing conditions; it provides a conservative reasonable worst-case calculation of combined operational noise estimates as measured at the nearest receptors; and provides clear calculations that demonstrate that project-related traffic would not result in a substantial contribution to a cumulative traffic noise impact as measured at the nearest sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Response to IHRIG-7
The commenter (Luke Watry) provided his curriculum vitae. No response is necessary. 2869
BAGINSKI 1