-
23 of the Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3, which states:
“
To compensate for
impacts to
approximately
0.97 acre of waters of the U.S., the
project
applicant
shall
purchase wetland mitigation credits at a
minimum of
1:1 mitigation ratio
from an approved mitigation bank with a Service Area that covers the project site. The San Franci
sco Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank currently has "Tidal Wetland and Other Waters Creation" credits available
for purchase
.
Either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the
CDFW may adjust the mitigation ratio and the applicant shall comply, but in no case shall
the mitigation ratio be less than 1:1.”
In addition
to having “
Tidal Wetland and Other Waters Creation
”
credits available
, th
e
San Francisco
Bay Wetland Mitigation Bank
restored 88 acres of historic baylands to full tidal influence, and enhanced and expan
ded essential habitat for
SMHM
and California Ridgway's rail to promote the
recovery of these species. Accordingly, the proposed compensatory mitigation would adequately
mitigate for
project impacts
to
SMHM
habitat and
SMWS
.
In order to clarify that Mitiga
tion
Measure BIO
-
3 would mitigate impacts to SMHM habitat and SMWS, pages 4.1 -
16 and 4.1
-
17 of the
Draft EIR are revised as follows.
Project construction activities on the eastern component of the project site could result in direct mortality and/or harass
ment of the federal and State endangered SMHM and CDFW
special
-
status SMWS. Additionally, the project would potentially result in impacts to marginal pickleweed habitat for these species. No construction activities would occur within the western component
of the project site, where most of the former salt ponds and pickleweed habitat occurs. However, construction of the proposed building and parking lot would occur partially within pickleweed habitat at a former salt pond in the eastern component of the pro
ject site. Further, disturbance of the upland area immediately adjacent to the salt pond in the eastern component would disturb habitat that could become increasingly important to SMHM and SMWS as escape refugia during flooding and inundation. These impact
s to SMHM and SMWS are regarded as potentially significant.
Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO
-
1a through BIO
-
1c listed below would be required to
reduce potential impacts to SMHM and SMWS to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
Additionally,
implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3, described for Impact BIO
-
3 below, would be
required to reduce potential impacts to SMHM and SMWS.
The
proposed project
also
includes establishing an approximately 32
-
acre wetland preserve on the
western component of the project si
te.
Th
e
32 -
acre
preserve
area contains six old salt ponds
totaling 26 acres. The 32
-
acre
p
reserve
w
ould
be preserved in perpetuity via recordation of a
d
eed
r
estriction, or other appropriate legal mechanism, ensuring that the salt ponds are permanently pre
served as open space in perpetuity
, as described on
P
age 2
-
6 of the Draft EIR
. Preservation of
this 32
-
acre preserve
would provide additional
mitigat
ion
for the loss of SMHM and SMWS escape
refugia
on the eastern component of the project site
.
As described on Page 71 of the Initial Study, the
Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan
indicates that portions of the project site would be inundated from future sea level rise, including the preserve ar
ea and portions of the eastern component of the project site.
The proposed project
72 Final
Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
includes no physical work
within
or modifications to the 32
-
acre preserve area, including no changes
to ground elevation. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impac ts related to sea level rise
on the preserve compared with existing conditions.
Elevations on the eastern component would
either remain at current conditions or would be raised in areas
to ensure that the building would
comply with the
City’s Flood Plain Management requirements (Hayward Municipal Code Chapter
9,
Article 4)
.
See also Response 4.14.
Because the project would result in no changes to SMHM or SMWS escape refugia on
the
western component of the project site and would raise ground elevations on portions of the eastern component, there would be no significant impacts on SMHM or SMWS escape refugia. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.
Response
4 .
6 The co
mmenter states
an opinion
that
indirect impacts to biological resources from project lighting and noise should be further evaluated in the Draft EIR and that mitigation may be warranted to reduce these impacts
.
The potential impacts of project lighting on
wildlife are evaluated on pages 4.1
-
18 and 4.1
-
19 of the
Draft EIR. As described therein, t
he proposed building and associated parking area would include exterior lighting. Light pollution can affect bird nesting behavior, flight patterns of bats during ni ght,
and other similar wildlife impacts. However, p
roposed exterior lighting and parking lot lighting must comply with Hayward Municipal Code Section 10
-
1.1606. Specifically, exterior lighting and parking
lot lighting must be designed by a qualified lighti
ng designer and erected and maintained so that
light is confined to the property and will not cast direct light or glare upon adjacent properties or public rights
-
of
-
way. Mandatory compliance with Section 10
-
1.1606 would ensure that the
proposed project do
es not create substantial new sources of light that adversely affect wildlife in the areas near the project site, including the Caltrans Pond between the eastern and western components of the project site.
As stated on
P
age 4.1
-
19 of the Draft EIR, i
mpacts
on special
-
status
species from project lighting would be less than significant with mandatory compliance with Hayward Municipal Code Section 10
-
1.1606.
Because compliance with the
Hayward Municipal Code
is mandatory and enforced, no additional mitigation
is necessary to ensure
that
light impacts on
biological resources are reduced.
Potential noise impacts of the project are evaluated on pages 86 through 89 of the Initial Study, which is included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. As described therein, constru ction of the project
would generate noise, but noise generated from project construction would be temporary.
Additionally, only a select number of construction equipment would generate noise exceeding acceptable limits beyond the boundary of the project si te. Impacts from construction noise would
be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
As described on
Page
88 of the Initial Study,
t
he primary on
-
site noise sources associated with
operation of the proposed project would include vehicle circu lation noise (e.g., engine startups,
alarms, parking) at the on
-
site parking lot
and,
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment at
the
proposed
industrial
building
. Vehicle trips generated by the project would be only
a small fraction of
the total trips that occur daily on State Route 92, adjacent to the project site.
Therefore, project vehicle trips would
not result in a
noticeable increase in traffic noise
over existing
conditions adjacent to the site
. Other vehicle noises, such as engin
e startups and alarms, currently
occur in the area at existing development to the east of the project site, as well as car horns travelling on State Route 92. As described on
Page
89 of the Initial Study, project HVAC noise
would
generate an estimated nois
e level of up to 60 dBA L
eq
at 50 feet from the proposed building,
without
accounting for a shielding effect by rooflines
and landscaping. According to the Center for Disease
73 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
Control
and Prevention (CDC)
, 60 dB is the approximate volume of a normal convers
ation.
1 Noise
levels of 60 dB would be below existing noise levels associated with the traffic volume on State Route 92, which includes
large truck and motorcycle
traffic
, in additional to cars
. Accordingly, noise
impacts of the project would be less than signifi
cant.
Because the project would not generate new sources of light or noise that affect nearby wildlife habitats, such as habitat at the Caltrans Pond, no significant impacts would result from the project.
Mitigation measures are not required. No revisions
to the Draft EIR are necessary.
Response
4 .
7 The commenter states that the proposed project is immediately adjacent to Eden Landing Ecological Reserve and would include western facing windows
and
asserts that
the Draft EIR
fails identify this
as a potenti
al threat to avian species or describe mitigation measures that w
ould
be incorporated to
avoid bird collisions.
The proposed industrial building was designed to avoid bird strikes, particularly the western -
facing
windows. As illustrated in the conceptual i
mage of the proposed building below, the western
-
facing
windows would have architectural features that
break up the glass surface and
protrude outward
from the window surface
.
The
se
architectural features would
break up and
divide the western
-
facing wind
ows, making it more
apparent to birds that the windows are a surface rather than an open space suitable for flying.
Because the building incorporates design features to avoid bird strikes, there would be no significant impacts associated with bird strikes
and mortality or injury. Mitigation is not required.
This comment requires no revisions to the Draft EIR.
1 Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Loud Noises Can Cause Hearing Loss. Retrieved on June 7, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html
74 Final
Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
Response
4 .
8 The commenter states
an opinion
that
Measure BIO
-
1d in
the Draft EIR should be revised to require
that burrowing owl survey techniques
be
coordinated with California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) staff
, and if owls are detected,
require
continue
d
coordination with CDFW.
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1d, on
P
age 4.1
-
20 of the Draft EIR
, requires surveys for burrowing owl to
be conducted prior to commencement of project construction and pursuant to guidance published by CDFW.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1d requires avoidance of burrowing owls with
prot
ective buffers established in accordance with guidance published by CDFW. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1d, i
f avoidance of burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional measures such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season and construction buffers of 200 feet
during the breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with CDFW.
Because
the
Mitigation Measure requires burrowing owl surveys to be conducted using CDFW methodology and avoidance using buffers specified by CDFW
or developed in consultation with CDFW, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.
Response
4 .
9 The commenter states
an opinion
that Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1e in the Draft EIR should be revised
to require coordination with CDFW and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) in determining
appropriate buffer distances from nests of California least tern, Western snowy plover, or black skimmer.
In response to this comment,
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1e on pages 4.1
-
20 and 4.1
-
21 is revised as
follows:
If active nes
ts are identified during the nesting bird survey, an appropriate avoidance buffer shall be established within which no work activity will be allowed which would impact these nests. The avoidance buffer would be established by the qualified biologist on a c ase
-
by
-
case basis based on the species and site conditions. In no cases shall the buffer be smaller than 50 feet for passerine bird species,
and
250 feet for raptor species
,
.
The buffer
or 600
feet
for California least tern, western snowy plover, and black
skimmer
shall
be at least 600
feet or otherwise determined by CDFW and USFWS
. Larger buffers may be required
depending upon the status of the nest and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. Buffers shall be delineated by orange
construction fencing that defines
the buffer where it intersects the project site.
No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response
4 .
10 The commenter states
an opinion
that project operation would generate tra
sh that attracts species
that would be a nuisance to salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) and salt marsh wandering shrew (SMWS), but that the Draft EIR provides no mitigation for impacts of nuisance species to SMHM or SMWS.
This comment is similar to comment 4.
4. Please see Response 4.4, above. As described therein, the proposed project would not attract nuisance or predator species.
Because the project would not
attract nuisance species, there would be no significant impact of nuisance species on SMHM or SMWS a
nd mitigation is not required.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
75 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
Response 4.11
The commenter describes the proposed wetland preserve area and asks how nuisance wildlife would be handled in the preserve. The commenter
also asks who
would
hold the fee title to the
preserve area and maintain levees in the preserve area.
The proposed preserve area would not include management or maintenance
activities. As described
on
P
age 2
-
6 of the Draft EIR, because the preserve area would be preserved in perpetuity with a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism, without management activities, no management plan or improvement plan is proposed.
Existing or baseline condi
tions within the
preserve area would not change as a result of the proposed project because the preserve area is currently not managed and is not developed. In other words, the proposed project would not alter or affect existing conditions within the prese
rve because establishing the proposed preserve is only
a legal mechanism and not a physical action.
If nuisance species, such as California gull, were to
inhabit the preserve area, it would not be a result of the project, as there would be no change result
ing from the project within the preserve area. Nuisance species can currently inhabit the preserve area. Because the proposed project would result in no physical changes or modifications to the preserve area, there are no impacts to mitigate in the Draft E IR regarding establishing the
preserve. This is consistent with CEQA. Pursuant to
State CEQA Guidelines
Section
15126.2, “In
assessing the impact of
a proposed project on the environment, the lead agency should normally limit its examination
to changes in
the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the
notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time
environmental analysis is commenced.
”
No maintenance or management of the pr
eserve
area was occurring at the time the notice of preparation was circulated or when environmental analysis for the Draft EIR began.
However, it is important to note that per Hayward Municipal Code (HMC) Chapter 4, Article 1, Public Nuisances and specifi cally the Weed, Rubbish and Litter
Abatement Ordinance, the property owner would be responsible for ongoing maintenance of the development site and the preserve site.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
The commenter’s
question about the person or group who will hold the fee title to the wetland preserve area does not appear to pertain to CEQA or the Draft EIR. Therefore, revisions to the Draft EIR are not required. However, for informative purposes, t he landowner
propos
es to
retain fee title
to the
wetland preserve area
.
Response 4.12
The commenter states that the Draft EIR identifies potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to groundwater contamination and references the applicable mitigation measures. The
commenter states
an opinion
that the Draft EIR does not describe the depth to the groundwater basin or how contamination of the groundwater would be prevented during geotechnical and building foundation construction.
As described on
P
age 4.3
-
12 of the Dra
ft EIR, the State Water Resources Control Board has stated that there may be residual soil and groundwater contamination, which result ed
in the preparation
of a Risk Management Plan (RMP). As further described on P
age 4.3
-
12 of the Draft EIR, according to
the RMP,
elevated concentrations of
contamination
in soil could be encountered during
construction activities at depths of 5
feet below ground surface or deeper within the
restricted
areas on the eastern component of the project site.
Therefore, the impact
s analysis in the Draft EIR
assumes that groundwater may be encountered at depths as shallow as 5 feet below ground 76 Final
Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
surface. Given that project construction would require excavations to at least 5 feet below ground surface, the Draft EIR assumes that groun
dwater would be encountered, regardless of the actual
depth of groundwater on
-
site. This assumption provides for the most conservative impact analysis because it assumes that groundwater would be encountered.
Accordingly, it is immaterial to the
Draft EIR
analysis to determine or state the
precise
depth to groundwater because it is assumed that
groundwater would be encountered
regardless of the depth
.
As described on
Page
4.3 -
13 of the Draft EIR, geotechnical requirements for the proposed building would require the use of displacement piers. The displacement piers use a hollow mandrill that is
filled with crushed rock that is vibrated into the ground to a preselected depth and is then raised
and lowered, while vibrating, to densify the gravel and the surrounding soils. This produces a column of compacted gravels and increases the density of the surrounding soils.
The column of
gravel created from displacement piers would cre
ate a potential pathway for migration of
contaminated groundwater plume to aquifers at depths of up to 20 feet below ground surface, as that is the recommended depth of the piers for the project. Due to the site’s proximity to the bay, the displacement pie
rs may also create a preferential pathway for groundwater associated with sea level rise, as the piers would displace lower permeable materials (e.g., clays and silts). Migration of the groundwater contamination plume into aquifers would be potentially sig nificant but mitigable.
Accordingly,
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2c, found on
P
age 4.3
-
15 of the Draft EIR, requires the
displace pier foundation to be designed by a geotechnical engineer. The displacement piers must
be
designed in a way to prevent creating a p
referential pathway between shallow groundwater at
approximately 5 feet below ground surface and deeper groundwater. The design must
then be
incorporated into project plans and constructed in that manner.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2c would
ensure that the displacement pier columns,
while potentially penetrating
an
aquifer or groundwater basin, do not create preferential pathways for contamination migration. The Draft EIR also contains Mitigation Measures HAZ -
2b, which
requires stormwater bio
retention areas to be located or designed to prevent contamination from leaching into aquifers. Because Mitigation Measures HAZ -
2b and HAZ
-
2c would prevent the
bioretention areas and foundation piers from creating a preferential pathway for contamination, no
additional mitigation is required to reduce impacts associated with groundwater contamination and project design. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response 4.13
The commenter asks if the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and Alameda County Water District have been consulted regarding the geotechnical mitigation measure requiring the use of displacement pier foundations for the proposed building. The commenter states an opin
ion
that additional mitigation
may be needed to prevent the migration of groundwater contamination.
The commenter’s description of geotechnical mitigation appears to refer to Mitigation Measure GEO
-
1 on pages 49 and 50 of the Initial Study, which is includ ed as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measure GEO
-
1 requires incorporation into the project all recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Engineering Services Report prepared by Professional Services Industries, Inc., an Intertek company, in Ja
nuary 2018. The Geotechnical Engineering Services Report, included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR, includes recommendations for the use of a displacement pier foundation for the building, as discussed above in Response 4.12. Implementation of Mitigation Me
asure GEO
-
1, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2c
pertaining to the displacement piers
,
discussed
above
in Response 4.12, do not require approval or oversight from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or Alameda County Water District.
Accordingly, neither agency wa
s consulted in the
77 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
development of mitigation measures provided in the Draft EIR. However, the Draft EIR was circulated to both agencies for review and comment.
The Alameda County Water District requested
that both they and
the RWQCB be consulted if soil or
groundwater contamination is encountered
during project construction
(see Response 2.1, above).
As described above in Response 4.12,
mitigation measure
s HAZ
-
2b and HAZ
-
2c
would prevent the
bioretention areas and foundation piers from creating a preferenti al pathway for contamination
;
therefore
, no additional mitigation is required to reduce impacts associated with groundwater contamination and project design. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response 4.14
The comment
er
states
an opinion
that elevations of the proposed relocated San Francisco Bay Trail are undetermined in the Draft EIR and that it is unclear if sea level rise
has been incorporated into
the project design
.
The elevation of the proposed relocated segmen
t of the San Francisco Bay Trail is provided on
P
age
72 of the Initial Study, which is provided as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. As described on P
age 72 of
the Initial Study, the surface of the relocated segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail would be appro
ximately 8 feet in elevation, measured from mean sea level. Because the Initial Study specifies the elevation of the relocated trail and is an appendix to the Draft EIR, the Draft EIR does specify the elevation of the trail segment. Pages 71 and 72 of the
Initial Study also specify elevations of the
proposed industrial building and parking lot. Therefore, elevations of the major construction components of the project are disclosed in the Draft EIR. As described on P
age 72 of the
Initial
Study
, no change in
elevation is proposed in the preserve area on the western component of the project site, and the area would be subject to sea inundation in the future, consistent with existing conditions.
Based upon the December 2015 California Supreme Court BIA vs BAAQM D decision, the issues of
environmental conditions affecting a project is no longer required under CEQA . Therefore, an
analysis of whether sea level rise would inundate and
impact
the project is not required in the Draft
EIR. The Draft EIR, like any EIR,
is intended to identify the potential significant impacts on the environment of the proposed project and provide mitigation measures or alternatives to reduce those significant impacts to the extent feasible.
As described on Page 71 of the Initial Study, t
he
Hayward Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan
indicates that portions of the project site would be
inundated from future sea level rise, including the preserve area and portions of the eastern component of the project site
, and contains gene
ral recommendat
ions to develop standards for
future development
.
The Draft EIR evaluates the project as it has been proposed by the project applicant. Regardless of whether the applicant has designed the project to withstand future sea level rise, the potential for
envir
onmental impacts to result from the project should it be inundated
are evaluated in the Initial Study, included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. As described on page
72 of
the Initial Study,
if
portions of the site
are
inundated from future sea level rise,
there would be no
release of hazardous materials because the
proposed use is for UHAUL storage pods and a UHAUL
regional office. The storage pods are not used for hazardous materials and hazardous materials would not be stored in an office setting. Therefo
re, inundation would n
ot release hazardous
materials and there would be no significant environmental impacts. The potential for inundation would be greatest during flood events in the future. The proposed project must comply with
Hayward Municipal Code Cha
pter 9, Article 4, pertaining to floodplain regulations. Additionally, should inundation from sea level rise become an issue
to operating the building
in the future, the
78 Final
Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
building or property own may develop and implement
adaptive
strategies to ensure the
f
unctionality of the site. Regardless of whether adaptive strategies are ever needed or
developed in
the future
, inundation would have no significant physical impacts on the environment
due to the
proposed use of the building
.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response 4.15
The commenter
summarizes some of their earlier comments in the letter .
This comment is a summary of prior comments in the letter. Because this comment is a summary of earlier comments, responses have been previously been provided. Please refer to r
esponse
s
4.1 through 4.1
4 , above.
Response 4.1
6 The commenter
states
an opinion
that Alternative 2 should be selected and is the environmentally superior alternative and avoids placing development in the way of sea level rise .
The commenter correctly identifies Alternative 2 as the environmentally superior alternative. As described
on
P
age 6
-
11 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 is the environmentally superior
alternative
.
The commenter
’
s
support for this alternative
is noted but does not require edits to the Draft EIR or question the analysis in the Draft EIR.
As described
above
in Response 4.14, impacts of sea level rise to the project are not a CEQA issue
or
topic
.
Alternatives are developed in CEQA to reduce significant impacts of a project that is proposed .
Since impacts of the environme
nt on a project are not significant CEQA impacts, it is not warranted to select an alternative to avoid sea level
rise impacts on the project.
No revisions to the Draft EIR
are necessary in response to this comment.
Response 4.17
The commenter
expresses disappointment in the proposed project and states that its design would
cause sea level rise elsewhere along the sho
reline of the San Francisco Bay.
The commenter
’
s opinion on the design of the project is noted. The commenter ’
s disappointment
with
the design of the project does not question the Draft EIR analysis or impact determinations.
Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.
The comment about sea level rise elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay resulting from the project does not ap
pear to directly relate to the Draft EIR. Therefore, no revisions t o
the Draft EIR are
necessary. However, for informative purposes, as described on pages 71 of the Initial Study, which is
included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
portions of the project site
incl
uding portions of the parking
area
woul
d be inundated from future sea level rise
.
Even
if components of the proposed project
were inundated during future flood events, the project site represents a neg ligible area
compared
to the amount of low
-
lying land along the San Francisco Bay. Implementation of the project would not substantially con
tribute to increased or accelerated sea level rise elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay.
Response 4.18
The commenter requests to be informed of future opportunities to comment on the project. This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.
79 Via Email
May
24 , 202
1 Leigha Schmidt
,
S
e
nior Planner
Planning Division
City of Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, C
A 94541
Leigha.Schmidt@hayward
-
ca.gov
Re:
Comment on
Draft
Environmental Impact Report,
4150 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Proj
ec
t
(
SCH No.
202
0 110180
)
Dear
Ms.
Schmidt
:
This letter is submitted on behalf of
the Laborers International Union of North America
,
L
ocal Union No.
304
and its members living and/or working in
or around
Hayward
(
“
LIUNA
”
)
regarding
th
e Dr
aft E
nvironmental
I
m
pact
Report (
“
DEIR
”
) prepared for the
4150 Point Eden
Way Industrial Development
Project
(SCH No. 2020
110
1 80
)
(
the
“
Project
”
)
.
After reviewing the
DEIR,
we conclude that
the DEIR fails as an information
al
document
and fails to impose all
feasible mitiga
ti
on measures to reduce the Project
’
s impacts. LIUNA requests that the City of
Hayward (
“
City
”
) ad
dress the
se shortcomings in a re
vi
sed draf
t environmental impact
report
(
“
RDEIR
”
) and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project.
L
I
U
NA’s
comments have been prepared with the
assist
ance of
wildlife biologist Shawn
Smallwood, Ph.D.
,
and
environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/
Air Protection Enterprise
(“SWAPE”)
.
Dr. Smallwood’s
commen
t and curriculum vi
tae are attached as Exhibit
A
he
re
to
and are incorporated herein by reference and entirety. SWAPE’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit
B
hereto and are incorpor
ated herein by reference in their entirety.
I.
P
ROJ
ECT DESCR
IPTION
The Project proposes to
demolish
and remove
t
he
existing
hist
oric salt pr
oduction
structure
and mate
rials and
develop
a 114,059 square f
oot warehouse with an
additional
2,785
square foot office
, and asso
ciated surfa
ce parking
,
landscaping
, and ut
ility an
d drainage
imp
rovements
on
a parcel located a
t
4150 Point Eden Way in the C
i
ty
.
The Project also proposes
to
establish a 32
-
acre
open
space
/
wetland preserve on the western portion of the Project
site and
proposes a land swap for the East
B
ay R
e
gional
Park District to rel
oc
ate the Bay Trail from the
c
ur
rent location along the eastern property line
of the eastern component of the Project site to
80 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
2 of
9 meander along the sou
thern
property
line and then to turn no
rth to run along the western property
line of the eastern compo
nent of the Project site.
II.
LEGAL BAC
KG
ROUND
CEQA requires t
h
at
an agency analyze the potential e
nvironmental impacts of its
p
roposed actions in an environm
ental impact report (“EIR”) (except in certain limited
circums
tances).
See,
e.g
., Pub. Res. Code § 21100.
The
EIR is the
very heart of C
EQ
A.
Dunn
-
Edwards v. BAA
Q
MD
(1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.
“T
he ‘foremost principle’ in in
terpreting
CEQA is that the Le
gislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reaso
nable sco
pe of
th
e statutory language.”
Com
munities for a Better Environment
v. Calif. Resources Agency
(
2 002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98,
10 9.
CEQA has two primary purposes.
First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and
the public about the potential,
significant en
vi
ronmental effects of a
pro
ject.
14 Cal. Code Regs.
(“CE
QA G
uidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).
“I
ts purpose is to inform the pu
blic and its responsible
officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the E
IR ‘protects no
t
only the environment b
u
t a
l
so informed self
-
government.’”
C
itizens of Goleta
Valley v. B
oard of Supervisors
(1990) 52
Cal. 3d 553, 564
.
The EIR has been described as “an
environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public an d its responsib
le
officials to
environm
e
nta
l changes before they have reache
d ec
ological points of no ret
urn.”
Berkeley Keep
Jets Over
the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs
. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty
(1973) 32 C
al.App.3d 795,
81 0
.
Second, CEQA requ
i
res
public agencies to avoid or redu
ce environmental damage when
“feasible” by requiring “envir
onmentally superior” alternatives and all fe
asible mitigation
measures.
CEQA Gui
delines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); s
ee also,
Berkeley Jets
,
91 Cal. App. 4th
1344, 1
3 54;
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Boa
rd of Supervisors
(1990) 52 C
al.3d 553, 564
.
The
EIR serves
to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identi
fy ways that en
vi
ronmental damage can b
e
av
oi
ded or
significantly reduced.”
CEQA Guidelines §15002(a)(2)
.
If the project will have a si
gnificant
effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or subst
antially lessen
ed
all significant effec
t
s o
n the environment where feasible”
and that any unavoidable sig
nificant effects on the enviro
nment are “acceptable due to overriding
concerns.” Pub.
Res.
Code § 21081;
CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B)
.
The le
ad agency
may d
ee
m a particular impact
t
o b
e insignificant only if it produc
es rigorous analysis and
conc
rete substantial e
vidence just
ifying the finding.
Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of
Hanford
(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692,
732
.
The EIR is the very hear
t of CEQA
“and
th
e integrity of the pro
c
ess
is dependent on the
adequacy of
th
e EIR
.
”
Berkeley
Jets
, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1355.
CEQA
requires that a lead
agency analyze all potentially significant environmental
impacts of its proposed actions in an
EIR.
Pub. Res. Code
§
21100(b)(1);
Guideline
s
§
15126(a);
Berkeley Jets
, 91 Cal.A
pp
.4th 1344,
1354. The EIR must not only identify the impac
ts, but must
also provide “information about how
81 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
3 of
9 adverse the impacts will be.”
Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of O
range
(1981) 11
8 Cal.App.3d 818, 831. T
h
e l
ead agency may deem a particular
im
pact to be insignificant only if it
produces rigorous ana
lysis and concrete substantial evidence
justifying the finding.
Kings County
Farm Bureau
,
221 Cal.App.3d
692
, 732
. “The ‘
foremost princi
pl
e’ in interpreting CEQ
A
is
that
the Legislature intended th
e
act to
be read so as to afford the fullest possible prote
ction to the
environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language.”
Communities for a Better
Env’t
,
103 Cal.
App.4th 98, 109
.
While
the
courts
revi
e
w
a
n
EIR
using
an
“abuse
of
discreti
on”
standard,
“the
reviewing
court
is
not
to
‘uncritically
rely
on
every
study
or
analysis
presented
by
a
project
propon
ent
in
support
of
its
position.
A
‘
clearly
inadequate
or
uns
upported
study
is
entitled
to
no
judici
a
l
d
eference.
’”
Berkeley
Jets
,
91 Cal
.
App.
4th
at
p.
1355
(emphasis
added)
(quoting
Laurel
Heig
hts
Improvement
Assn.
v.
Regents
of
University
of
California
(1988)
47 Cal.
3d
376,
391
409,
fn.
12).
As
the
court
state
d
in
Berkeley
J
et
s
:
A
prejudicial
abuse
of
discretion
occurs
“if
the
failure
to
include
relevant
information
precludes
informed
decisio
nmaking
and
informed
public
participation,
thereby
thwarting
the
statutory
goals
of
the
EIR
proc
ess.”
(
San
Joaquin
Raptor
/Wildlife
Rescu
e
Center
v.
County
of
St
a
nis
laus
(1994)
27 Cal.App.4th
713,
7 22;
Galante
Vineyards
v.
Monterey
Peninsula
Water
Managemen
t
Dist
.
(1997)
60 Cal.
App.
4th
1109,
1117;
County
of
Amador
v.
El
Dorado
County
Water
Agency
(1
999)
76 Cal.
App.
4th
931
,
946.)
More
re
ce
ntly,
the
California
S
u
pre
me
Court
has
emphasized
that:
Wh
en
reviewing
whether
a
discussion
is
sufficient
to
satisfy
CEQA,
a
court
must
be
satisfied
that
the
EIR
(1)
includes
sufficient
detail
to
enable
those
who
did
not
participate
in
it
s
preparation
t
o
understand
and
to
cons
i
der
meaningfully
the
issues
the
prop
osed
project
raises
[citation
omitted],
and
(2)
makes
a
rea
sonable
effort
to
substantively
connect
a
project's
air
quality
impacts
to
likely
health
con
sequences.
Sierra
Club
v.
Cty
.
of
Fresno
(20
18 )
6 Cal.5th
502,
510
(
2 018
),
citing
Laurel
Heights
Improvem
ent
Assn.
v.
Regents
of
University
of
California
(1988)
47 Cal.3d
376,
405.
“
Whether
or
not
the
alleged
inadequacy
is
the
complete
omission
of
a
requir
ed
discussion
or
a
patently
i
nadequate
one
-
p
ar
agraph
discussion
devo
i
d
o
f
analysis,
the
reviewing
court
m
ust
decide
whether
the
EIR
serves
its
purpose
as
an
informa
tional
document.”
Sierra
Club
v.
Cty.
of
Fresno
,
6 Cal.5th
at
516.
Although
an
agency
has
di
scretion
to
decide
the
manner
of
discussing
po
tentially
significant
e
ffe
cts
in
an
EIR,
“
a
reviewing
court
must
determine
whether
the
discussion
of
a
potentially
sig
nificant
effect
is
sufficient
or
insufficient,
i.e.,
whether
the
EIR
comports
with
its
inten
ded
function
of
including
‘de
tail
sufficient
t
o
enable
those
who
did
not
participate
in
its
preparation
t
o
understand
and
to
consider
meaningfully
the
issues
raised
by
the
proposed
project.’”
6 Cal.5th
at
516,
citing
Bakersfield
Citizens
for
Local
Control
v.
City
of
Bakersfield
(2004)
124
Cal.App.4t
h
1184,
1197.
“The
deter
m
ina
tion
whether
a
discussion
is
suff
icient
is
not
solely
a
matter
of
discerning
whether
there
i
s
substantial
evidence
to
support
the
agency’
s
factual
conclusions.
”
6 Cal.5th
at
516.
Wheth
er
a
discussion
of
a
potentia
l
impact
is
suf
fi
cient
“
presents
a
mixe
d
qu
estion
of
law
and
fact.
As
such,
it
is
generally
subject
to
82 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
4 of
9 independent
review.
However,
und
erlying
factual
determinations
—
including,
for
example,
an
agency’s
decision
as
to
which
meth
odologies
to
employ
for
analy
zing
an
environ
me
ntal
effect
—
may
warran
t
de
ference.”
Sierra
Club
v.
Cty.
of
Fresno
,
6 Cal.5th
at
516.
As
the
Court
emphasized:
[W]hethe
r
a
description
of
an
environmental
impact
is
insufficient
because
it
lacks
analysis
or
omit
s
the
magnitude
of
the
impact
is
not
a
subst
an
tial
evidence
question
.
A
conclusory
discussion
of
an
envir
onmental
impact
that
an
EIR
deems
significant
can
be
determ
ined
by
a
court
to
be
inadequate
as
an
informational
document
without
reference
to
substanti
al
evidence.
Sierra
Club
v.
C
ty.
of
Fresno
,
6 Cal.5th
at
514.
C
EQA requi
res that an environmental documen
t include a description of the project’s
envir
o
nm
ental sett
ing or “baseline.”
CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(d)(
2).
The CEQA “baseline” is
the set of environmental conditions against whi
ch to compare a
p
roject’s anticipated impac
ts.
CBE v. SCAQMD
, 48 Cal.4th at
321.
CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states
,
i
n pertinen
t
part, that a lead agency’s environmental
review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in t
he
vicinity of the project,
as they exist at the time [enviro
nmental analysis] is
commenced, from both a lo
c
al
and regio
nal perspective. This environmental
setting
will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Age
ncy determines
wh
ether an impact is signifi
cant.
See,
Save Our Peninsula
Committee v. County of Monterey
(2001) 87 Cal.
A
pp
.4th 99, 1
24 -
125
(
“
Save Our Peninsula
”
)
.
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
The DEIR Fails to
Adequately Address and Mitigate the Project
’
s Impacts
on
B
iol
ogical Resource
s.
Expert
wildlife
biologis
t Shawn Smal
lwood, Ph
.D.
,
reviewed the DE
IR
and
found that it
inadequat
ely evaluate
d the Project
’
s i
mpacts on wildlife.
S
ee
Exhib
it A.
Dr
.
S
m
allwood
performed a site vi
sit
at the Project
site on
May
11 . Ex
.
A, p. 1. He
dete
c
ted
3 7
species of vertebrate wildlife,
7 o
f which are special
-
statu
s species
.
Id
.
at
8 .
Dr.
Smallwood
noted that the site was heavily trafficked by wildlife and the
site
’
s
vertical vegetation
structure and occupancy
by California ground s
quirrels
exp
ands i
ts attraction to nesting
birds
,
foraging raptors
, and
the
many species that utilize ground squirrel burrows.
Id
. at 1. Dr.
Smallwood
observed
white
-
tailed kite, red
-
tailed hawk, Forster
’
s terns, Anna
’
s hummingbirds,
Double
-
crested cormora
nts,
California gu
lls and Can
ada g
oose,
and
great egrets
among other
species.
Id
. at 1
-
2. A full
list of the species observed by Dr. Smallwood can be found in Table 1
of
his attach
ed comment.
Id
. at
7 .
83 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
5 of
9 Based on his site visit and
review of the DEIR, Dr.
Smallwoo
d conclude
d that the
fo
llow
ing f
actors render the DEIR
’
s discussion of wil
dlife impacts
insufficient:
1. T
he DEIR provides an inadequ
ate
base
line and fails to
a
dequately
analy
ze
and mitigate
the Project
’
s impacts on biol
ogica
l re
source
s.
As Dr. S
mallwood points
ou
t, the
DEIR
’
s
conclusion
based on the
Initial
St
u
dy that no
special
-
status species occur on
the Project site is
refuted by WRA
’
s
and Dr. Smallwood
’
s
survey
results
. Ex. A,
p.
10. One or
more unidentified
biologists working for WRA survey
ed the Project
s
it
e
on June 19, 2020 and detected 3 special
-
status species,
including American white pelican,
which is a Priority Level 1 California Species of Special
Concern.
I
d
.
Between WRA
’
s and Dr.
Smallwood
’
s surveys, 8 special
-
status species were de
tected, and in Dr.
Smallwood
’
s experience
8 special
-
status s
pecies
is rich for one 8
-
acre site survey
ed only twi
ce.
Id
.
However
, the Initial
Study
characterizes it as empty
of special
-
status species
–
it
is not.
Id
.
Dr. Smallwood notes that WRA
consulte
d
many
sources
of
w
ildlife species occurrences,
including eBird. However, WRA
’
s
list of
potentially
o
ccurring special
-
status species is much
shorter than Dr. S
m
allwood
’
s
.
Id
. at 11
;
see also
id
. at 12
-
14. Dr. Smallwood found evidence in
databases
and on
-
si
te survey
outcomes
that would support po
tential occurrence likelihoods of 79
special
-
status species, whereas WRA only considers 10 of them.
Id
. at 11. O
f these
10 species
WRA considers, WRA determined one to have high po
tential, two
to have
moderate
potent
ial
,
three to h
ave
low po
tential, and four
as unlikely.
Id
.
Dr. Smallwood dete
cte
d two of the three
species WRA assigned low potential
.
Id
. The third spe
cies of low
potential
,
bur
rowing owl, was
reportedly seen
immediately
adjacent to the Project site in 2
015 and 2016.
I
d
.
WRA also errone
ously concludes
special
-
status species of birds are unlikely due to the
lack of suitable
nesting
habitat on the
Project
site.
Id
. However, Dr. Smallwood notes that WRA
mischaracterizes habitat in order to pigeon
-
h
ole bir
d species into unr
e
ali
st
ic narrow portions of
the
environment
,
which are then said to not occur at the Project
site.
Id
. Dr. Smallwood states
that there is no neat distinction between nesting habitat and alleged other types of habitat
since
habitat is that
portion of the en
v
ironment used by the species and no
bird can successfully n
est
without ha
ving found sufficient
forage and cover throughout the year.
Id
. Nor can a b
ird
successfully nest without havin
g survived migration and
dispersal
by loc
ating stop
-
ov
er and
staging opp
o
rtunities.
Id
.
In failing to
establish an adequate
b
aselin
e of biological resources, th
e DE
IR fails to
adequately
anal
yze
and mitigate
the Proje
ct
’
s
impacts to b
iological resources.
2. The DEIR fails to a
dequatel
y anal
yze the Project
’
s
i
mpacts on wildli
f
e
m
ovemen
t.
According to
the DEIR, the Proje
ct
site pr
ovides
marginal wi
ldlife corr
idor value due to
the proximity t
o Eden Landing
and substantial bar
riers to terrestrial pass
age, as well as the sparse
nature of vegetation prese
nt with
in the Pr
oject sit
e
. DE
IR, p. 4.1
-
9 –
4. 1
-
10. However, Dr.
Smallwood states there are two fundamental flaws in the DEIR ’s analysis of whether the Project
84 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
6 of
9 would interfere w
ith wildlife movement in
the region
.
Ex. A,
p. 17.
A
ccording
to the
DEIR
and
to WRA,
“To account for po
t
ential impacts to wildlife movement/migratory
corridors, biologists
reviewed maps from the California Essential C
onnect
ivity
Project
” and
“habitat connectivity
data available through the CDFW Biogeogra
phic Information and Observation Sys
te
m.
” DEIR,
App.
A
,
p.
12. Howe
ver, Dr. Smallwood states that the first problem with this state ment is that
it
impli
es the Project s
ite must serve as a movement corridor as a pre
requisite for determining that
the
Project would
interfere
with wildlife move
m
ent. Ex. A, p. 17.
W
i
th
this implication, the
DEIR adopts a CEQA
standard that do
es not exist.
Id
. The
CEQA standard is whether a
project
would
interfere
substantially
with the moveme
nt of any nat
ive resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with e
stablished
nat
ive
r
esident or migratory w
ildlife corridors.
Id
.
“The
primary phrase of the
st
andard goes to wildlife mov
ement regardless of whether the movement is
channeled by a corridor.”
Id
.
Wildlife movement includes stopover habitat used by birds and
bats, and staging
habitat during dispersal,
and
migra
tion
or home range patrol.
Id
. Dr
. Smallwood
notes that many specie
s of wildlife likely use the Project site for movement across the region and the Project would cut wildlife off from stopover and stagi n
g habitat, length
e
ning the distances
wildlife must tr
avel
before finding alternate sto
pover habitat.
Id
. Therefore, the
Project would
interfere with wildlife movement in the region
.
The second problem wi
th the DEIR
’s analysis of
wildlife movement is that
it misapplies the
C
alif
ornia Essential
H
abitat Connectivity Project.
See
i
d
.
A revised
EIR must be prepared to address th
ese flaws in the DEIR
’
s analysis of the Project
’
s
impacts on wildlife movement.
3. The DEI
R fails to ad
dress the
impacts on
wildlife f
rom additional tra
f
f
ic
gen
erated by the Project.
The DEIR d
id not address the impacts
on wildlife morta
lity from traffic
generated by the
Project.
Ex. A, p.
18 .
According to the DEIR, the
Proje
c
t
will
generate an
additiona
l
1,192,862
vehicle miles trave
le
d
(
“
VMT
”
) annual
l
y
y
et t
he DEIR prov
ides no analysis of the impacts on
wildlife that wi
ll be caused by an increase in
traffic on the roadways servicing the Project.
Id
.
Veh
icle collisions with special
-
status s
pecies is
no
t a minor issue, bu
t rat
her res
ults
in the
death
o
f m
illi
ons of species
each year. Dr. Smallwood explains:
Across North
America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al.
2003).
In Canada, 3,562 birds were
estimat
ed killed pe
r 100 km of
road per yea
r (Bish
op and Brogan 201
3 )
, a
nd t
he US estimate
of avian mortality
on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 de
aths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340
million total per year (Loss et a
l
. 2014
). Local impacts can be more
intense
than
nation
ally.
Id
. D
r. Smallwood esti
mated that the
Pro
j
ect
’
s
additional traffic would cause
654 wildlife
fatalities
per year, and
32,681
wildlife
fatalities
over 50
years
of operations
.
Id
.
at
2 0
.
An RDEIR
is required to analyze
and mi
tigate this pote
ntially signi
ficant i
mpact on w
ildlife.
B.
The DEIR Inade
quat
e
ly Anal
y
zed and Mi
tigated the Project
’
s
Hazards and
Hazardous Mat
erials.
85 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
7 of
9 Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. , of the environmental
consulting f
i
rm SWAPE reviewed the DEIR
’
s analysis
of the Project
’
s impacts
on h
azards,
hazardous
m
aterials,
air quality
, and greenhouse gases (
“
GHG
”
)
. SWAPE
’
s
comm
ent letter and
CVs are attached as Exhibit B.
According to the DEIR,
Cornerstone Earth Group prepared a Phase I
Environmental
Sit
e
Assessment (
“
ESA
”
) for the Project site
in March 2017. DE
I
R, p. 4.3
-
1. The Ph
ase I ESA
recommended an update to the 2014 Risk Management Plan
(
“
RMP
”
)
that was prepared to
“
control potential hazardous contamination and expos
ure.
”
Ex.
B, p. 1.
Specifically
,
Cornerstone
Earth Group
stated
:
We rec
ommend preparing a
n
RMP [risk management plan] Addendum that
presents the
planned development earthwork/grading, soil and ground water management protocol and
vapor intrusion mitigation measures. The purpose of
the
RMP Addendum will be to provide
mor
e spec
ific details regar
d
ing the
development, and will propose any changes to the RMP to
accommodate the
proposed development. The RMP Addendum should describe earthwork
required
for geotechnical soil improvements, such a
s over
-
excavation and re
-
compacti
on
of fi
lls
or other groun
d
improvements. The RMP Addendum should be submitted
to the Water Board
for their review and approval prior to construction
.
DE
IR, App.
A, App. E, p. 22.
However, SWAPE notes that this recommen
dation has not been incorporated in
to the
DEIR. Ex. B, p. 2
.
SWAPE states that an updated RMP is necessary for inclusion in a revised DEIR, and the revised DEIR needs to demon
strate the en
gagement of the San Fran
cisco Bay
Regional Water Quality C
o
ntrol
Boa
rd in the review of
an updated RMP and mi
tigation that is
n
e
cessary to ensure that
the
public and workers are not exposed to known conta
minants at the
site
, incl
uding benzene and petrole
um hydrocarbons.
Id
.
Additionally, SWAPE
states that the selection
of a vapor barrier as mitigation for
cont
aminated vapors, a
s
proposed in the DEIR, should not be pre
-
selected, but instead, the
applica
nt should con
s
ider a range of al
t
ernatives.
Id
.
The City should
document its consideration
of a wide range of alt
ernative
s to address
contaminated
vapors, in
cludi
ng soil vapor extr
a
ction
and groundwater conta
inment or extraction an
d tr
eatment in a
revised
DEIR.
Id
.
C.
The DEIR
Ina
d
equ
ately Anal
yzed and Mitigated the Proj
ect
’
s Impacts
on
A
i
r
Q
u
ali
ty.
1. The
DEIR undere
stimate
d
the Project
’
s emissions.
SWAPE found t
hat the DEIR und
er
e
stimated the Project
’
s emissions
and therefore
cannot be
relied up
on to determine the
significance of the Project
’
s air
qual
ity impacts.
Ex.
B, p.
2 .
T
he
DEIR relies on emissions
cal
culat
ed from t
he California Emissions
Estimator Model
86 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
8 of
9 V
ersion
Cal
EEM
od.20
1 6.3.2 (
“
Ca
lEEMod
”
).
I
d
.
This model
, which is used
to ge
nerate a
project
’
s construction and
operational
emissions,
reli
es on recommend
ed default values for site
-
specif
ic information
rel
ated to a nu
mber of factors.
Id
.
CEQA requires any ch
anges to the defau
l
t
values to be
justified by substantial
evidence.
Id
.
S
WAPE
reviewed the Pr
oject’s CalEEMod output files and fou
nd t
hat the values
input
into the model
were unsubstantiated or inc
onsistent with
inf
ormation provided in the DEIR.
Id
.
A
s
a result, the DEIR
’
s ai
r quality analysis cannot be relied
upon to
determine the Pro
je
ct
’
s
emissions.
Specifically, SWA
PE fo
und
that the follow
ing val
ues used in the DEIR
’
s air quality
analys
is were either incons
istent with information provided in the D
EIR or otherwise u
n
just
ified:
i.
U
se of an underestimated land use
size
. Ex. B,
p
.
3. ii.
Failure to consider cold storage.
Ex.
B,
p
p.
3 -
4 .
iii.
Unsubstan
tiated
reductio
ns to CH
4 ,
CO
2 ,
and N
2 O in
tensity fa
ctors.
Ex. B,
p
p.
4 -
5 .
iv.
Unsubstantiated reductions to architect
ural coating emiss
i
on factors.
Ex.
B
,
p
p.
5 -
6 .
v.
Fail
ure to model material
import
.
Ex. B,
p
. 6
.
vi.
Failure to substantiate demolition.
Ex. B,
p
p.
6 -
7 .
vii.
Unsubstantiated change to
architectural coating phase
length
.
Ex. B,
p
p.
7 -
9 .
As a result of these errors in
the DEIR, the Pro
j
ect
’
s cons
truction and operational
emissions a
r
e und
eres
timated and cannot be relied upon to
determine
the significance
of the
Project
’
s air quality impacts. A revi
sed DEIR is necessary to address
these errors.
2. An updated
anal
y
sis in
dic
ates that the Proj
e
ct may have a
potentially
significa
nt ai
r quality impact.
In an effort to more accurately estimate the project
’
s
construction
-
related emissions,
S
WAPE pre
pared a
n updated C
alEEMod model using
P
roject
-
specific information
in
t
he DEIR.
Ex. B
,
p.
9 .
SWAPE
’
s updated analysis
estimates
that
the Project
’
s construction
-
related
VOC
emissions would
be
63.6 pounds per day
,
exce
ed
ing
the applicable daily maximum
BAAQMD
threshold of
54 p
ounds per day.
I
d
.
S
WAPE
’
s model demonstrates
that the
P
rojec
t
would result
in
a
potentially
significant
air q
uality impact that was not previously identified or addressed in the
DEIR. An updated EIR should
be prepared to adequately assess
and mitigate the
potential
air
quali
ty impacts that the Projec
t may have
on t
h
e surr
ounding env
i
ronment.
D.
The DEIR
Fail
s to Adequately Analyze the
Projec
t
’
s GH
G Impacts
.
The DEIR
estim
ates th
at the
Project
would generate
447.6
metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents per year (
“
MT
CO
2 e/
year
”
) and
would therefore not exceed the
bright
-
l
ine thres
h
old
of 660
MT
CO
2 e/
year
resulting in a less than sig
nificant impa
ct related to GHG emissions
.
87 4150 Po
i
nt Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
DEIR
May
2 4, 2
021
Page
9 of
9 DEIR, p.
1 -
7 . However, SWAPE not
es tha
t the
DEIR
’
s
GHG analysis
,
and su
bsequent less
-
than
-
significant
impact co
nclusion
,
is incorre
ct for
t
wo
r
easo
ns
. Ex.
B, p.
1 0
.
First,
the DEIR
’
s GHG analysis relies on a flawed air mode
l, as
discussed above.
I
d
.
Second,
SWAPE
’
s updated modeling demonstrates
that the Project
’
s mitigated emissions would
include approx
imately 620
MT
CO
2 e/
year
of total constru
ction e
missions an
d
approximately
1,301
MT
CO
2 e/
year
of net annual operational emissions.
Id
. When amortizing the Project
’
s
construction related
GHG emissions over a period of 30
years
and summing them with the
Proj
ect
’
s
operational
GHG emissions, SWAPE es
tima
tes
net annual
GHG
emissions of 1,322
MT
CO
2 e/
year
, which
greatly exceeds the BAAQMD threshold of
660
MT
CO
2 e/
year
.
Id
. at 10
-
11. An updated EIR is
required
and sho
uld
pr
ovide
additional information and analysis
to
con
clude less than
significant GHG im
pacts.
IV.
CONCLUSIO
N
For the fo
regoing
re
asons,
LIUNA
belie
ves that the
DEIR
is
wholly inadequate.
LIUNA
urges
the
City to prepare a
n RDEI
R that
confor
m
s
with C
E
QA, as described above.
Sincerely
,
Paige Fenn
ie
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
88 Exhibit A
89 1
Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
City of Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, C
A
94541
1 9
May
20 21
RE
:
415
0 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Dear M
s
.
Schmidt
,
I write to comment on the
Draft
Environmental Impact Report (
D
EIR)
and
biological
resources report
(WRA
202
0 )
prepared for
the
415
0 Point Eden Way Industrial
Development Project
(
City of Hayward
2021
)
. It
would
convert
8.31 acre
s of
open
space
bounded by East Bay Regional Park District’s San Francisco Bay Trail and C
alifornia
Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
Eden Landing
Ecological Reserve
to
116,844
square
feet of warehous
e
and office
.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are
the following. I hold a Ph.D.
degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I subsequently worked for four years as a post
-
graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and
distribution, habitat selection,
interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I authored numerous papers on special
-
status species issues. I se
rved as Chair of the Conservation
Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society
–
Western Section. I am a member of The
Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a part -
time lecturer
at California State University, Sacramento. I was
Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s
premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California fo
r thirty
-
five years, including at many
proposed project sites. My CV is attached.
SITE VISIT
I visited the proposed project site
0 6
:
4 0
to
0 9:34
hours
on
11 May
20 21
.
The site
was
covered by grassland, shrubs and an abandoned building
(Photos 1
‒
3 ).
The site was
bounded on two sides by natural areas, so it was heavily trafficked by wildlife .
The site’s
vertical vegetation structure and its occupancy by California ground squirrels expand its attraction to nesting birds, foraging raptors, and the m any species that utilize ground
squirrel burrows
(Photos
4 and
5 )
.
I
also
observed
white
-
tailed kite, red
-
tailed hawk and Forster’s terns (Photos 6
-
8),
Anna’s hummingbirds (Photos 9 and 10), Double
-
crested cormorants, California gulls
90 2
and Canada goose (Ph
otos 11 and 12), bushtits and house finches (Photos 13 and 14), California towhees and northern mockingbirds (Photos 15 and 16), great egrets and common ravens (Photos 17 and 18), red
-
winged blackbirds and Bryant’s savannah
sparrows (Photos 19 and 20), and
other species (Table 1). I saw evidence of breeding by many of the species I detected, and I saw 7 special
-
status species on the site (Table 1).
The site is rich in wildlife.
Photo
s
1 -
3 .
Views to
west
-
northwest
(top), southwest (middle), and west (bottom) of
the p
roject site,
11 May
20 21
.
Cliff swallows and other species nested in the structure at top, house finches and other species nested in coyote bush in the middle, and Canada geese and others nested on the
ground at bottom.
91 3
P
hotos
4 and 5
.
European starling surveils from atop coyote bush
(top),
and
California ground squirrel surveils from a fence post
(bottom),
11 May 2021.
P
hoto
s
6 ‒
8 .
White
-
tailed kite hovers
(left)
, a red
-
tailed hawk
soars
(
middle
)
,
and
Forster’s tern carries fish
(right)
over the project site
,
11 May 2021
.
92 4
P
hoto
s
9 and
10 .
Male
(left) and
female
(right)
Anna’s hummingbirds
on the
Project
site,
11 May 2021
.
P
hoto
s
11 and
12 .
A double
-
crested
cormorant follows a California gull
(right) and Canada geese arrive to the
project site (below)
,
11 May 2021
.
93 5
Photos
1 3
and 1
4 .
Bushtit
(left)
,
house finch
(right) at the project site,
11 May 2021
.
Photos 1
5 and 1
6 .
California towhee
(left) and
northern mockingbird
(right) at
the project site,
11 May 2021
.
94 6
Photos 1
7 and 1
8 .
Great egret
(left) and
common raven with an order of fries
(right)
on
the project site,
11 May 2021
.
P
hotos 1
9 and
20 .
Red
-
winged blackbird
(left) and
Bryant’s savannah sparrow
(right) on the project site,
11 May 2021
.
95 7
Table 1
. Wildlife species I observed on site on
11 May
20 21
.
Species
Scientific name
Status
1 Note
House cat
Felis catus
Non
-
native
On trail
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
T
racks
California ground squirrel
Otospermophilus beecheyi
On site
Canada goose
Branta canadensis
Breeding on site
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
Nesting on site
Rock pigeon
Columba livia
Non
-
native
Eurasian collared
-
dove
Streptopelia
decaocto
Non
-
native
Anna's hummingbird
Calypte anna
Nesting on site
Black
-
necked stilt
Himantopus mexicanus
Adjacent
Reserve
American avocet
Recurvirostra americanus
Adjacent
Reserve
Willit
Tringa semipalmata
Flock
Killdeer
Charadrius vociferus
Mew gull
Larus canus
Flyover
California gull
Larus californicus
WL
F
requent flyover
Forster's tern
Sterna forstreri
Flyover to forage
Double
-
crested cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
WL
Forag
ed,
perch
ed
Great egret
Ardea alba
Frequent flyover
Snowy Egret
Egretta thula
Flyover
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura
BOP
Foraging on site
White
-
tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
CFP,
BOP
Foraging on site
Red
-
tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
BOP
Foraging on site
Black phoebe
Sayornis nigricans
Nesting on site
American crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Foraging on site
Common raven
Corvus corax
Foraging on site
Barn swallow
Hirundo rustica
Foraging
Cliff swallow
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Nesting
on site
Bushtit
Psaltriparus minimus
Nesting on site
Northern mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Nesting on site
European starling
Sturnus vulgaris
Non
-
native
Nesting on site
House finch
Carpodacus mexicanus
Many
Lesser goldfinch
Carduelis psaltria
Bryant’s s
avannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
alaudinus
SSC3
Nesting on site
Lincoln’s sparrow
Melospiza lincolnii
Alameda s
ong sparrow
Melospiza melodia
pusillula
SSC2
Nesting on site
California towhee
Pipilo crissalis
Nesting on site
Red
-
winged blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
Nesting on site
Brown
-
headed cowbird
Molothrus ater
1 Listed as
C
FP
= California
Fully Protected (Fish and Game Code 3511)
, BOP
= California Fish and
Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey),
SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3 (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and
Gardali 2008).
96 8
During my 2+ hours at the
8.31 -
acre project site, I detected 3
7 species of wildlife. Of
these species,
7 (
19 %)
we
re special
-
status species. If I were to perform additional
surveys, my list of detected species would lengthen. The results of a single survey qualify as an absurdly
thin empirical foundation for characterizing the environmental setting of a proposed project, and therefore can only serve as a starting point.
However,
w
hen diligently performed, and when outcomes are analyzed appropriately and fully reported, the number
of species detected within a given reconnaissance survey effort can inform of the number of species that likely would have been detected with a larger survey effort during the same time of year. I had only 2+ hours available to perform a visual scan surv
ey on
11 May 2021, so there were only so many species I was likely to detect. By recording when I detected each species, I was able to forecast the number of species that could have been detected with a longer effort using the same visual scan method. Fig
ure 1 shows my cumulative count of species detected at the site with increasing time into my survey. Just as I have seen for many other survey efforts, a nonlinear regression model fit the data very well, explaining 9 9 % of the variation in the
data, and i
t showed progress towards the inevitable asymptote of the number of species detectable
over a longer time period
using
the same survey method.
Figure 1.
Actual and
predicted relationships
between the number of
vertebrate wildlife species
detected and
the elapsed
survey time based on visual
scan on
11 May 2021
.
Note
that the relationship would
differ if the survey was based
on another method, another
time of day, or during another
season. Also note the
cumulative number of
vertebrate species across a
ll
methods, times of day, and
seasons would increase
substantially
.
In this case, the model fit to the data indicate that by about 16 hours of surveying in the
same manner that I did on
11 May 2021, I would have reached an asymptote of about 46 vertebrate wildlife species, or about
9 more species than I actually detected (Figure 1). I
could have detected many more species with commitment of more hours of surveying at different times of day to detect diurnal, nocturnal and crepuscular species, o r by
surveying in different seasons and years to accommodate detection of migrants and 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0 10
20 30
40 50
Minutes into survey
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Y
Actual count of species
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 14
97 9
species with multi
-
annual cycles of abundance, or by surveying with various methods such as acoustic detectors or thermal
-
imaging for bats, owls, and nocturnally migrato
ry
birds, and live
-
trapping for small mammals.
In fact, WRA’s (2020) survey added 13
species to mine for a total 50 species of vertebrate wildlife.
My reconnaissance
-
level
survey, performed carefully and analyzed appropriately, informs me that the site i s rich
in wildlife but also that its environmental setting remains insufficiently characterized as foundation for analysis of impacts to special
-
status species. What my reconnaissance
survey does not inform me, and what detection surveys could, is which o f the potentially
occurring special
-
status species actually occur at the site in addition to those I had the good fortune to detect.
The likelihood of detecting special
-
status species is typically lower than that of more
common species. This difference c
an be explained by the fact that special
-
status species
tend to be rarer than common species. Special
-
status species also tend to be more
cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful
relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 2). (Note that listed sp
ecies number fewer than special
-
status species, which are inclusive of
listed species.) As demonstrated in Figure 1, the number of species detected is a function of survey effort. Therefore, greater survey effort increases the likelihood that listed spec
ies will be detected. Based on the outcomes of 106 previous surveys that I performed at sites of proposed projects,
WRA’s (2020) survey effort carried a 61%
chance of detecting a listed species
, and mine
carried a
71 % chance of detecting a listed
species.
In fact, I detected
1 listed species of vertebrate wildlife, which beat the odds.
Figure 2.
P
robability of
detecting ≥1 Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered
Species of wildlife listed under
California or federal
Endangered Species Acts,
based on surv
ey outcomes that
I logit
-
regressed on the number
of wildlife species I detected as
an expert witness during 106
site visits throughout
California. The
dashed vertial
line represents the cumulative
number of species WRA (2020)
detected on 19 June 2020, and
the solid
vertical line
represents the cumulative
number of species I detected on
11 May 2021.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of species detected
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
Probability of detecting Candidate,
Threatened or Endangered Species
95% CI
98 10
I am confident that with greater survey effort, including surveys during other times of year and using additional methods, and including the appropriate detect ion survey
protocols, multiple additional special
-
status species would be detected, including
merlin, burrowing owl, multiple additional species of bats, and most of the species listed in Table 2. A larger survey effort is needed to inform the public and decision
-
makers
about the potential project impacts to wildlife and how to mitigate them.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
One or more unidentified biologists working for WRA surveyed the project site on one day, 19
June 2020,
“
to map vegetation, aquatic communities,
unvegetated land cover
types, document plant and wildlife species present, and evaluate habitat on site
for the
potential to support special status species
.”
This survey effort introduced two
shortfalls to the DEIR. First, w
hoever surveyed the site
was assigned
too
much to do
within a day
. Biologists need to focus on one specific objective per survey effort, and
not
assigned to 5 simultaneous objectives. Second,
WRA (2020) did not report how long the
biologist(s)
surveyed
the
site nor what time the survey started. The most basic
information needed to assess the survey effort was unreported.
WRA
(2020
:9
) report
s that two biologists from Monk and Associates surveyed the site on 7 January 2015 and 32 acres of the “Preserve” [sic] on 1 July 2015 and
29 August 29
2016
. However, WRA cites no report nor summarizes what the Monk and Associates’ biologists specifically
found.
The Initial Study
reports that Monk and Associates found
no special
-
status species, but does not report whether Monk and Associates concluded that no special
-
status species occur on the site. Instead,
the Initial Study
(2020:33)
implies that Monk
and Associates made such a determination by reporting,
“
Accordingly, it was determined that
special
-
status plant species do not occur on the
project site (see Appendix A)
,” leaving it unclear whether Monk and Associates felt the same way as WRA.
City o
f Hayward
’s determination
in the Initial Study
that no special
-
status species occur
on the site was refuted by
WRA’s
survey results, and by mine (Tables 1 and 2). WRA
actually detected 3 special
-
status species, including American white pelican, which is a
Priority Level 1 California Species of Special Concern. I detected 7 special -
status species
during my 2+ hour visit. Between our surveys, we detected 8 special -
status species of
wildlife (Table 2). In my experience, 8 specia
l
-
species is rich for one 8
-
a
cre site
surveyed only twice.
The Initial Study
mischaracterizes it as empty of special
-
status
species; it is not.
I am
also
concerned that WRA (2020)
might mis
represent the
M
anager of
Eden
Landing Ecological Reserve
with hearsay determination
s
. WRA represents the
M
anager
as having determined that California least tern, western snowy plover, and black skimmer are unlikely to use the project site. After this representation, WRA (2020:30) writes “
Hence, the proposed p
roject will not result in direct impacts to
California least
tern, western snowy plover and black skimmer; however, these species could nest in
99 11
restored salt ponds or along levees within the Eden Landing Ecological Reserve that is located next to the
proje
ct site.
”
It is unclear whether the Manager actually said this, as my quotes apply only to the statement made by WRA, and WRA uses no quotes to represent any determination made by the Manager. WRA does not specifically summarize what the Manager feels ab
out an industrial project being built in the middle
of
Eden Landing Ecological Reserve
.
WRA (2020
:10
) reportedly consulted many sources of wildlife species occurrences, including eBird. However, WRA’s (2020) list of potentially occurring special -
status
s
pecies is much shorter than mine (Table 2). I found evidence in data bases and on -
site
survey outcomes that would support potential occurrence likelihoods of 79 special -
status species (Table 2). Of these 79 species, WRA (2020) considers only 10 (12%) of them. Of the 10 species WRA considers, WRA determines 1 to have high potential, 2 to have moderate potential, 3 to have low potential, and 4 as unlikely. I detected 2 (white -
tailed kite and Alameda song sparrow) of the 3 species WRA assigned low potentia l. The
third species assigned low potential
–
burrowing owl
–
was reportedly seen right next
door
at Hayward Regional Shoreline only 3 days after Monk and Associates’ 7 January 2015 survey of the project site, and again the next year. The sightings might
not have
been exactly where depicted in Figure 3, but they were close enough for the owls to have flown to the project site within seconds, or minutes at the longest.
WRA (2020) determines occurrences to be unlikely for California least tern and western snowy plover, but again eBird records indicate otherwise (Figures 4 and 5). The sightings straddle the project site, which means these species likely fly back and forth across it. The airspace above the ground is just as important as conditions on the gr
ound, because birds such as California least tern and western snowy plover use it as their medium of travel.
WRA (2020) erroneously concludes special
-
status species of birds are unlikely due to
lack of suitable nesting habitat on the project site. These determinations of occurrence
likelihood are in error because there is no neat distinction between nesting habitat and alleged other types of habitat. Habitat is habitat; it is that portion of the environment used by a species. No bird can successfully nes
t without having found sufficient forage
and cover throughout the year. Nor can a bird successfully nest without having survived migration and dispersal by locating stop
-
over and staging opportunities. WRA
mischaracterizes habitat in order to pigeon
-
hole
bird species into unrealistically narrow
portions of the environment, which are then said to not occur at the project site.
Similarly, WRA (2020:17) generally dismisses the likelihoods of occurrences of special -
status species of wildlife based on the fol
lowing false assertion: “
Features
not found
within the Project site that are required to
support special
-
status wildlife species
include:
• Perennial aquatic habitat (e.g. streams, rivers
or ponds)
• Tidal Marsh areas
• Serpentine soils to support host pla
nts
• Sandy beaches or alkaline flats
• Caves, mine
shafts, or abandoned buildings
.
The absence of such habitat features eliminates
components critical to the survival or movement of most
special
-
status species found in
the vicinity.
” Abandoned buildings
occur on the site. More importantly, many special
-
100
12 Table 2.
Occurrence likelihoods of special
-
status species at the project site, based on
assessments by
WRA (2020)
and
on
records of sightings in eBird and iNaturalist
, and on my own visit
.
Species
Scientific name
Status
1 Occurrence likelihood
WRA
2020
eBird, iNaturalist,
Smallwood
Aleutian cackling goose
Branta hutchinsonii leucopareia
WL
Adjacent
Redhead
Aythya americana
SSC2
Adjacent
American white pelican
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
SSC1
On site
California brown pelican
Pelecanus
occidentalis californicus
CFP
Adjacent
Double
-
crested cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
WL
On site
White
-
faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
WL
Adjacent
Greater sandhill crane
Grus c. canadensis
CT, CFP, SSC3
Nearby
Long
-
billed curlew
Numenius
americanus
BCC,
WL
Adjacent
Whimbrel
Numenius phaeopus
BCC
Adjacent
Marbled godwit
Limosa fedua
BCC
Adjacent
Snowy plover
Charadrius alexandrinus
FT, BCC, SSC
Unlikely
Adjacent
Mountain plover
Charadrius montanus
SSC2
In region
Black
skimmer
Rynchops niger
SSC3
Unlikely
Adjacent
California least tern
Sternula antillarum browni
FE, CE
Unlikely
Adjacent
Elegant tern
Thalasseus elegans
BCC, WL
Adjacent
Caspian tern
Hydroprogne caspia
BCC
Adjacent
California gull
Larus
californicus
WL
On site
Turkey vulture
Cathartes aura
BOP
On site
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
WL
, BOP
Adjacent
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
BGEPA, BCC, CFP
Adjacent
Golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos
BGEPA, BCC, CFP
Adjacent
Red
-
tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
BOP
On site
Ferruginous hawk
Buteo regalis
BCC,
WL
, BOP
Nearby
Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni
BCC, CT, BOP
Nearby
Red
-
shouldered hawk
Buteo lineatus
BOP
Adjacent
Sharp
-
shinned hawk
Accipiter striatus
WL
, BOP
Adjacent
Cooper’s hawk
Accipiter cooperi
WL
, BOP
Adjacent
Northern harrier
Circus cyaneus
SSC3, BOP
Adjacent
101
13 Species
Scientific name
Status
1 Occurrence likelihood
WRA
2020
eBird, iNaturalist,
Smallwood
White
-
tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
CFP,
BOP
Low
On site
American kestrel
Falco sparverius
BOP
Adjacent
Merlin
Falco columbarius
WL
, BOP
Adjacent
Prairie falcon
Falco mexicanus
BCC,
WL
, BOP
Adjacent
Peregrine falcon
Falco peregrinus
BCC, CFP, BOP
Adjacent
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
BCC, SSC2, BOP
Low
Adjacent
Great
-
horned owl
Bubo virginianus
BOP
Nearby
Short
-
eared owl
Asio flammeus
SSC3, BOP
Adjacent
Barn owl
Tyto alba
BOP
Adjacent
Western screech
-
owl
Megascops kennicotti
BOP
Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird
Selasphorus sasin
BCC
Nearby
Rufous hummingbird
Selasphorus rufus
BCC
Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird
Calypte costae
BCC
Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker
Picoides nuttallii
BCC
Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker
Melanerpes lewis
BCC
Nearby
Vaux’s swift
Chaetura vauxi
SSC2
Nearby
Willow flycatcher
Epidomax trailii
CE, BCC
Nearby
Olive
-
sided flycatcher
Contopus cooperi
BCC, SSC2
Nearby
Oak titmouse
Baeolophus inornatus
BCC
Nearby
Horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
WL
Adjacent
Purple martin
Progne subis
SSC2
Nearby
Bank swallow
Riparia riparia
CT
Nearby
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius
ludovicianus
BCC, SSC2
Adjacent
Yellow
-
billed magpie
Pica nuttalli
BCC
Nearby
San Francisco
Common yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
SSC3
Unlikely
Adjacent
Yellow warbler
Setophaga petechia
BCC, SSC2
Nearby
Yellow
-
breasted chat
Icteria virens
SSC3
Nearby
Oregon vesper sparrow
Pooecetes gramineus affinis
SSC2
Nearby
Bryant’s savannah sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
alaudinus
SSC3
On site
Alameda
song sparrow
Melospiza melodia
pusillula
SSC
2 Low
Adjacent
102
14 Species
Scientific name
Status
1 Occurrence likelihood
WRA
2020
eBird, iNaturalist,
Smallwood
Grasshopper sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum
SSC2
Nearby
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
CT, BCC
Adjacent
Yellow
-
headed blackbird
X. xanthocephalus
SSC3
Adjacent
Lawrence’s goldfinch
Spinus lawrencei
BCC
Nearby
Pallid bat
Antrozous
pallidus
SSC,
WB:
H
Moderate
In region
Townsend’s big
-
eared bat
Plecotus t. townsendii
SSC,
WB:
H
In region
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis
SSC,
WB
H
Moderate
In
rang
e
Silver
-
haired bat
Lasionycteris noctivagans
WB
:M
In region
Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
SSC,
WB:
H
In region
Little brown bat
Myotis lucifugus
WB
:M
In range
Canyon bat
Parastrellus hesperus
WB
:M
In region
Small
-
footed myotis
Myotis cililabrum
WB
M
In region
Miller’s myotis
Myotis evotis
WB
M
In region
Fringed myotis
Myotis thysanodes
WB
H
In range
Long
-
legged myotis
Myotis volans
WB
H
In range
Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
WB
LM
In region
Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
WB
LM
Nearby
American badger
Taxidea taxus
SSC
Very close
Salt
-
marsh
harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys raviventris
FE, CE, CFP
High
Nearby
Western spadefoot
Spea hmmondii
SSC
In range
Western pond turtle
Actinemys marmorata
SSC
Nearby
1 Listed as FT or FE = federally Threatened or Endangered, BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, BCC = US Fish and Wild life
Service’s Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California Threatened or Endangered, CFP = California Fully Prote cted
(CDFG Code 3511),
BOP
= California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3 (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WB = We stern
Bat Working Gro
up with low, medium and high conservation priorities.
103
15 status species of wildlife in the area incorporate as habitat grassland and shrubs.
Examples include Salt marsh harvest mouse, western pond turtle (where they lay eggs), American badg
er, pallid bat, yellow
-
headed blackbird, tricolored blackbird, grasshopper
sparrow, Bryant’s savannah sparrow, loggerhead shrike, horned lark, short -
eared owl,
burrowing owl, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, merlin, American kestrel, white -
tailed
kite, no
rthern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and most of the others in Table
2. WRA’s assertion is another attempt to pigeon
-
hole species into unrealistically narrow
portions of the environment.
F
igure 3.
Locations of burrowing owl sightings (blue
teardrops) on 10 January 2015
and 20 December 2015 (Source: eBird). The project site is visible at center -
right in the
image
.
104
16 F
igures 4 and 5.
eBird sightings of western snowy plover (top) and California least tern (below)
.
105
17 WILD
L
IFE
MOVEMENT
The DEIR’s analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region is flawed in two fundamental ways. According to the DEIR and to WRA
(2020:12)
,
“
To account for potential impacts to wildlife movement/migratory corri dors,
biologists reviewed maps
from the California Essential Connectivity Project
” and ...
“
habitat connectivity data available
through the CDFW Biogeographic Information and
Observation System
.”
The first problem with this statement is that it implies th e project
site must serve as a movement corridor as a prerequisite for determining that the project would interfere with wildlife movement. However, with this implication, t he
D
EIR adopts
a
CEQA standard of analysis that does not exist. The CEQA standard
is
whether a project will “
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors
…” The primary phrase of the standard goes to wildlife mov ement
regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. And anyhow, corridors are typically regarded in science as human
-
created landscape structures intended to
reduce the effects of habitat fragmentation, and only infrequently as a channeli zation of
wildlife movement caused by landscape structure (Smallwood 2015).
Wildlife movement in a region is often diffuse rather than channeled (Runge et al. 2014, Taylor et al. 2011) unless anthropogenic changes have forced channeling or targeting of “i
sland” patches of habitat (Smallwood 2015). Wildlife movement must include stopover opportunities for birds and bats (Taylor et al. 2011), and staging habitat (Warnock 2010) during dispersal, migration or home range patrol. Many species of wildlife likely
use the
site of the proposed project for movement across the region. The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, and would lengthen the distances that wildlife must travel before finding alternate stopover habitat. The pr oject,
therefore, would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The D
EIR needs to be
revised to address this impact.
The second fundamental problem with the passage I quoted from the DEIR is that it misapplies the
California
Essential
Habitat
Con
nectivity
Project
. At
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18486 &inline , the
California
Essential
Habitat
Connectivity
Project very specifically pointed out that it is not: “ A
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service response to potential impacts to a habitat or species from a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
,
” nor “
Fine scale, with every important piece of
habitat identified
” nor “
“Essential”, meaning the only places of importance
” nor “
A
solution by itself for how to provide necessary linkages for any given species of plant or animal.
..
Linkage designs will
vary depending on focal species chosen and the goal of
providing connected habitat for a chosen species might be met several different ways ”
nor “
The final word on connectivity for California.
” With analytical grid cells of 2,000
acres, the spatial grain
of the
California
Essential
Habitat
Connectivity
Project is much
too coarse for the conclusion drawn from it in the DEIR.
106
18 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The
D
EIR predicts the project would generate an additional
1,192,862
vehicle miles
traveled (VMT)
annually. This VMT value should have served as a basis for predicting road mortality of wildlife that would be caused by traffic generated by the project.
Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, b
ird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds wer
e estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be mor
e intense than nationally
, as demonstrated by a study performed near the
project site
.
In a recent study of traffic
-
caused wildlife mortality, investigators found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches
along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Using carcass detection trials performed on land immediately adjacent to the traffic mortality study (Brown et al. 2016) to adjust the found fa talities for the
proportion of fatalities not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error, the estimated traffic
-
caused fatalities was 12,187. This fatality estimate translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year that were killed by au tomobiles. In terms
comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 tim es the Canadian estimate.
An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
Increased use of existing roads would increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2
001). It is possible that project
-
related traffic impacts would far exceed the
impacts of land conversions to proposed project uses. Wildlife roadkill is not randomly distributed, and so it can be predicted. Causal factors include types of roadway, huma n
population density, and temperature (Chen and Wu 2014), as well as time of day and adjacency and extent of vegetation cover (Chen and Wu 2014, Bartonička et al. 2018), and intersections with streams and riparian vegetation (Bartonička et al. 2018). For example, species of mammalian Carnivora are killed by vehicle traffic within 0.1 miles of stream crossings >40 times other than expected (K. S. Smallwood, 1989 -
2018
unpublished data). Reptiles are killed on roads where roadside fences end or where fences
are damaged (Markle et al. 2017). There has even been a function developed to predict the number of golden eagles killed along the road, where the function includes traffic volume and density of road
-
killed animals available for eagles to scavenge upon
(L
onsdorf et al. 2018). These factors also point the way toward mitigation measures, which should be formulated in a
revised
D
EIR.
107
19 Predicting project
-
generated traffic impacts to wildlife
The
D
EIR predicts that the project would generate
1,192,862
vehicle miles traveled
annually. This is a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and m
igrating (Photos
21 and
22 ). Despite the obvious risk to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the
D
EIR does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from
the project site.
Photo
21 .
A Gambel’s quail
dashes across a road
on
3 April
2021. Such road crossings are
usually successful, but too often
prove fatal to the animal. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood
.
Photo
22 .
A mourning
dove killed by vehicle traffic
on a California road. Photo
by Noriko Smallwood,
21 June 2020
.
For wildlife vulnerable to front
-
end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et
al. (2009) as a basis, although it
would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per
mile along a county road in Contra
Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground 108
20 squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),
52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red -
legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many west
ern fence lizards, but also
skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species).
During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non -
volant fatalities was
19,500 cars
and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. The project is predicted to generate
1,192,862
vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1
,825 miles per fatality,
would predict
654
wildlife fatalities per year.
Operations over 50 years would
accumulate
32,681
wildlife fatalities
. It remains unknown whether and to what
degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, th ereby
contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts.
The Project’s toll on wildlife could be even higher than I predict.
The
D
EIR does not address this impact in the least.
Based on my as
sumptions and simple calculations, the project
-
generated traffic would
cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to revise the
D
EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation
measures to i
mprove wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The
D
EIR presents a flawed analysis of cumulative impacts
where it says,
“
...
impacts to
biological resources would be considered and mitigated on a project -
by
-
project
basis.
Permanent losses of sensitive habitats, including sensitive natural communities and
listed species, associated with cumulative development would be mitigated to a less than
significant
level. As such, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be significant but mitigable,
and after mitigation would not be cumulatively considerable. .”
In effect, the DEIR implies
that cumulative impacts are really j
ust residual impacts of
incomplete mitigation of project
-
level impacts. If that was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. And if that was the standard, then I must point out that none of the
project
-
level impacts would be offset to any degree by the
proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for burrowing owls, nesting birds, and bats.
But the DEIR’s implied standard is not the standard of analysis of cumulative effects. CEQA defines
cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the analysis.
The DEIR needs to be revised to perform an appropriate, serious analysis of cumulative impacts.
When it comes to wildlife, cumulative effects can often be interpreted
as effects on the
numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale. In the case of migrating birds, the project’s cumulative effects could be measured as nume rical reductions of
breeding birds at far
-
off breeding sites as migrating adults and next
-
year’s recruits lose
access to stop
-
over habitat. In the cases of wildlife species that are susceptible to traffic 109
21 collisions, the project’s contribution to ongoing
and foreseeable traffic
-
caused mortality
can be measured or predicted. Even crude predictions of cumulative impacts are imperative.
A
fair argument can be made for the need to revise the D
EIR to
adequately
address the project’s
potential contributions to
cumulative
impacts on wildlife in the
region
.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Either the provisions of the SJMSCP must be fully implemented, or the project’s impacts
need to be mitigated independent of the SJMSCP. Either way, the
EIR need
s to be
revised
. Due to inadequate implementation, the SJMSCP is currently unsuitable as a mitigation strategy for
this
Project
.
A
ppropriate detection surveys
need to be performed
for each special
-
status species
s
o that informed impacts analyses can contribute to an
EIR, including the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures.
Measures are also
needed to mitigate road traffic impacts to wildlife.
BIO
-
1a
SMHM and SMWS Habitat Fencing
I have served as the biological monitor at a construction site where salt marsh harvest mouse occurred. I am familiar with the fencing, its maintenance, and the other steps needed to minimize take. The proposed measure is i
ncomplete. The key missing step is
the live
-
trap and removal of salt marsh harvest mouse from the project site prior to construction. Given the size of the project, this step would require a massive undertaking. The trap and removal protocol would need
to be followed after the fence is
installed. Many traps managed by many biologists would need to cover the entirety of the project site., and all captured salt marsh harvest mice would need to be relocated outside the fenced area.
BIO
-
1b Qualified Biolog
ical Monitor
More than one biological monitor would be needed. The size of the Project would easily overwhelm a single monitor.
BIO
-
1d Burrowing Owl Pre
-
Construction Surveys and Avoidance
The DEIR falsely asserts, “
The
[clearance]
surveys shall
be
consistent with the
recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW (2012). ” In fact, clearance
surveys would not be consistent with CDFW (2012), which recommends detection surveys be completed prior to preconstruction take
-
avoidance surveys. The DEIR
fa
lsely characterizes clearance surveys, otherwise known as take -
avoidance surveys, as
detection surveys, but the two types of surveys are different and intended to meet different objectives.
The
CDFW (2012)
d
etection surveys
we
re designed by species’ exp
erts to, at reasonable
cost, provide the best chance for detecting
burrowing owls
by applying
specific
survey
methods most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present. The objectives of the
110
22 CDFW (2012)
detection
-
survey
protocol
are to (1) support
negative findings of species
when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and (4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation.
Preconstruction surveys
, or as the DEIR
refers to them
--
clearance surveys,
are no
substitute for detection surveys.
They are intended to have been informed of burrowing
owl whereabouts by the outcome of detection surveys.
Negative findings of
preconstruction surveys cannot be interpreted as e
vidence of absence, as falsely
characterized in the DEIR.
BIO
-
1e Nesting Bird Avoidance and Pre
-
Construction Surveys
Pre
-
construction nesting bird surveys are incapable of detecting the majority of bird nests that would occur on the site. Birds are noto
riously capable of hiding their nests
and of behaving in manners to fool observers into thinking there are no nests or the nests are located elsewhere. Rushing to locate nests within 14 days of grading cannot achieve the level of detection of nests needed
to avoid impacts. Detection surveys would
be needed, and the detection survey results should then inform preconstruction surveys.
See my comments under BIO
-
1d, which apply to nesting bird avoidance minus the
specific survey guidelines of CDFW (2012).
B
IO
-
1f Special
-
Status Bat Avoidance and Pre
-
Construction Surveys
This measure inappropriately defers formulation of the mitigation plan until some unreported date in the future, but most certainly at a date that precludes meaningful participation from me o
r other members of the public. The details of such a plan are important, and review of the details would best be made by experts on bat detection, which could include more biologists than the very few who work for CDFW.
The measure is vague over whethe
r the avoidance surveys would be performed at
appropriate times of year or within a few days of construction. See my comments above regarding the efficacy of preconstruction take
-
avoidance surveys. Surveys for bats
should not be rushed by imminent habita
t destruction by heavy machinery.
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION
Road Mortality
I recommend funding wildlife crossings at strategic locations along roads used by the project, especially where large trucks would be anticipated to cross sensitive areas likely
traveled by special
-
status species. I also recommend funding research into wildlife mortality caused by car and truck traffic. Traffic
-
calming measures would also help.
111
23 Measures to Rectify Impacts
Compensatory mitigation ought also to include f
unding contributions to wildlife
rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that would be delivered to these facilities for care. Most of the injuries likely would be caused by collisions with automobiles. Many of these animals would
need treatment by wildlife rehabilitation
facilities.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
Bartonička, T., R. Andrášik, M. Dula, J. Sedoník, and M. Bíl. 2018.
Identification of
Local Factors Causing Clustering of Animal
-
Vehicle Collisions. Journal of Wildlife
Management. Journal of Wildlife Management DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21467
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to veh icle
collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE
-
00604
-
080202.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012
-
2015 Report
Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.
Chen, X. and S. Wu. 2014. Examining patterns of animal –
vehicle collisio
ns in
Alabama, USA. Human
-
Wildlife Interactions 8:235
-
244.
City of Hayward. 2021.
4150 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
Draft
Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. for City of Hayward, California.
Forman, T. T
., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Kobylarz,
B. 2001. The effect of road type and traffic intensity on amphibian road mortality. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:10 -
15. 112
24 Lonsdorf, E. C. A. Sanders
-
Reed, C. Boal, and T. D. Allison. 2018. Modeling golden eagle
-
vehicle collisio
ns to design mitigation strategies. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1633
-
1644.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird -
Vehicle Collision
Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763 -
771.
Markle, C. E., S.
D. Gillingwater, R. Levick, P. Chow
-
Fraser. 2017. The true cost of
partial fencing: evaluating strategies to reduce reptile road mortality. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:342
-
350.
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wild life
movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.
Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environmen t 12(7): 395
–
402,
doi:10.1890/130237.
Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California.
Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 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.
Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expande
d scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.
Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.
Journal of Avian Biology 41:621
-
626.
WRA. 2020.
Revised
biological resources
technical report
Point Eden U
-
Haul
D
evelopment Project
,
Hayward, Alameda County, California
. Prepared for
U
-
HAUL,
815 Marketing Company
, Oakland, California.
113
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
Ecologist
Expertise
•
Finding solutions to controversial
problems related to w
ildlife interactions with
human
industry,
infrastructure
, and
activities
;
•
Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;
•
Using
system
s
analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform
management decision
s.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 198 7 .
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
6 6
8 professional publications, including:
8 8
peer reviewed publications
2 4
in non
-
reviewed
proceedings
5 5
4 reports
,
d
e
clarations
,
posters
and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
8 7
public presentations
of research results
Editing for scientific journals:
Guest Editor,
Wil
dlife Society Bulletin
,
2012
-
2013, of
invited papers
representing
international views on the i
m
pacts 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 Commit
tee (SRC), August 2006 to April 20
11. The
five
-
member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitig
ation and monit
o
ring measures.
The SRC
review
ed
the science underlying the A
lameda C
ounty Avian Protection Program, and advise
d
114
S
mallwood CV
2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004
-
20 07
, California Energy Commission (CEC).
P
rovide
d
consulting
se
r
vices as needed to the CEC
on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and p
roduced several reports.
Also collaborated with
Lawrence
-
Livermore National Lab
on research
to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting
Ecolog
i
st, 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 L
a
nding 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 Ecologis
t, 1999
-
2 005
, BioResource Consultants
.
Design
ed and
implemented
research and
monitoring
studies
related to avian fatal
ities at wind turbines,
avian elec
trocutions on electric
distribution poles across California
, and avian fatalities at transmission lines
.
Chairm
a
n, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society --
Western Section, 1999
-
2001.
P
repared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation fu n
ding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995
-
2000
, Institute for Sustainable Development.
H
ead
ed
ISD’s program on
in
tegrated resources management. D
evelop
ed
indicators of ecological integrity for large areas,
using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and G
IS.
Associate, 1997
-
1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis.
W
orked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several
studies
related to wildlife
interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide resi d
ues in groundwater
across a large landscape
.
Lead Scientist, 1996
-
19 99, National Endangered Species Network.
I
nform
ed
academic scientists
and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws.
T
estified at public hearings on endangered species
issues
.
Ecologist
, 1997
-
19 98, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology.
C
onducted 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
-
19 95, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning
, and
quantitative assessment of land units for their
conservation and restoration opportunities
based
o
n
ecological resource requirements of 29
special
-
status
species.
D
eveloped
ecological
indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County
115
S
mallwood CV
3 to
receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post
-
Graduate Researcher, 1990
-
1994,
Department
of Agronomy and Range Science
, U.C. Davis
.
Under
Dr. Shu Geng
’s
mentorship
,
s
tudied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley.
M
a
n
aged
and analyzed a data base of energy us
e in
California agriculture. Assisted with
landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination
across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co
-
taught Conservation B
iology with Dr. Chris
t
ine
Schonewald
,
1991
&
19 93,
UC
Davis
Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for
Dr. Richard
Coss
’s course on
Psychobiology
in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology;
Research
Assistant
to
Dr. Walter E. Howard
,
1988
-
1990
, UC Davis
Department of
Wildlife and F
i
sheries
Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to
Dr. Terrell P. Salmon
, 1987
-
19 88,
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,
19 85
-
19 87,
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,
19 88. Tested use of new sampling methods for
numerical
monitoring
of Sumatran
t
iger
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 w i
ldlife
. 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
beh
a
vior 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.
Collis
i
on 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
-
e
jector
wind t
urbine
(MEWT)
.
D
esigned and implemented a before
-
after, control
-
i
mpact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new , shrouded
wind turbine
developed by
Ogin Inc. (formerly known as
FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation
). S
upported by a
$718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy R
esearch program
and a 20% match share contribution from
Ogin
, I manage
d
a crew of seven field biologists who
performed
periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys
, carcass detection trials, nocturnal
behavior surveys using a therma
l camera, and spatia
l
analyses
with the collaboration of
a GIS
analyst
.
Field work began 1 April 2012
and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its
MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances .
116
S
mallwood CV
4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altam
o
nt Pass
.
S
tudied
wildlife
impacts
caused by
5,400
wind turbines
at the world’s most
notorious
wind resource area
.
S
tudied how impacts are
perceived by monitoring and how they are
affected by
terrain, wind patterns, food resources,
range
management practic
e
s,
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
.
D
irected
research toward reducing
bird
electrocutions on electric distribution poles
,
200
0 -
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
-
18 1
(D. Colorado)
.
P
rovided 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.
P
rovided expert reports based
on four site visit
s
and
an
extensive document review of burrowing animals.
C
onducted transect
surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
D
iscovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified i
n 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
.
P
rovid
ed
expert testimony on the role of b
u
rrowing
animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington.
P
rovided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
P
redicted and verified a certain population density
o
f pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as
well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue.
C
onducted transect surveys for
evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Di
scovered
substantial intrusio
n
of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and d
eclarations
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
.
T
estified before
multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of
Supervisors
and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions.
P
r
epared
expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol
-
level survey
s
for special
-
status species
.
Used
California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife
and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols
to
search
for
C
alifornia 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
on’s
hawk, Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle and other special
-
status species.
Conservation of
San Joaquin
kangaroo rat.
P
erformed
research to identify factors responsible for the
decline of this endangered species
at
Lemoore Naval Air Station,
2000
-
2013,
and
implemented
habitat en
h
ancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the
population
.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow
-
billed magpies
.
Funded by
Sacramento
-
Yolo Mosquito and
Vector Control District
, 2005
-
2008, compared survey results pre
-
and
post
-
West Nile Virus
epidem
i
c
for
multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow -
billed magpie
and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV
.
117
S
mallwood CV
5 Workshops on HCPs
. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2 -
day
workshop on Habitat Conse
r
vation 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
Manag
e
ment.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways
101,
46 and 41
.
U
sed
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 Monter
e
y 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 .
M
onitor
ed
the
success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of wil l
ows at another location, and the
response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sit e
s.
A
lso us
ed
GPS to monitor the
response of fossorial animals to yellow star
-
thistle eradication and natural grassland res
toration
efforts at Bear Valley in
C
olusa County
and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in
Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red
-
legged Frog
.
A
ssisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife
Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the fe d
erally listed
California red
-
legged frog in Santa Clara County.
A
lso measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule
.
W
rote a white paper and summary letter explaining
scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take pe
r
mit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and
holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted
188 signatures of
scientists and environm
e
ntal professionals
concerned about No Surprises rule
US Fish and Wildlife
Service
,
National Marine Fisheries Service
, all
US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative
.
D
esigned narrow channel marsh to increase
the likelihood of survi
v
al and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical
habitat elements.
I provided a report to Norther
n
Territories, Inc.
Assessment
s
of
agricultural production s
ystem
and
environmental technology transfer to China
.
T
wice
visited
China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection A
g
ency 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
.
C
onducted landscape ecology study of Yolo Cou
n
ty to
spatially prioritize allocation of
mitigation
efforts
to improve ecosystem functionality within the
County from the perspective of 29 special
-
status species of wildlife and plants.
U
sed a
hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply princi p
les of landscape and ecosystem
ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units.
D
erived GIS maps to help
guide the conservation area design, and then
d
eveloped implementation strategies.
118
S
mallwood CV
6 Mountain lion track c
ount
.
D
eveloped and condu
c
ted
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 an
d land use are also
monitored.
Tr
a
ck survey t
ransect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other f
elids
.
Upon award of
Fulbright Research Fellowship
,
I d
esigned and
initiated
track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, incl u
ding Sumatran tiger, fishing
cat, and golden cat.
S
pent four months on Sumatra and Java
in 1988
, and learned Bahasa Indonesia
,
t
he official Indonesian language
.
Wildlife in a
griculture
. Beginning
as
post
-
graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and o
t
her
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 publi
s
hed 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 s tudy
.
D
eveloped 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 f
orest
c
lear
-
cuts
. D
eveloped gopher sampling methods
and t
ested various
poiso
n
baits and baiting regimes
in the largest
-
ever field study of
pocket gopher
management in
forest plantations,
involving 68
research plots i
n 55 clear
-
cuts among 6 National Forests in northern
California.
Risk assessment of exotic s
pecies in North Ameri
c
a
.
D
eveloped 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.
Pee
r
Reviewed Publications
Smallwood
,
K. S. 2020.
USA
wind energy
-
caused bat fatalities increase
with shorter fatality
search intervals
. Diversity
12 (
98 )
; doi:10.3390/d12030098
.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell,
and
S. Standish
. 2020.
Dog
s
detect larger wi
n
d energy impacts on
bats and birds
. Journal of Wildlife Manag
ement
84:852
-
864.
DOI:
10.1002/jwmg.21863
.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell.
2020.
Relating
bat pa
ssage rates to
w
in
d turbine fatalities
.
Diversity
1 2
(
84 )
; doi:10.3390
/
d12020084
.
Smallwo
o
d, K. S.,
and D. A. Bell.
2020.
Effects of
wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat
fatalities
. Journal of Wi
ldlife Management
84:684
-
696
.
DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844
Kitano, M.,
M.
Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and
S. Sh
iraki.
2020.
Seasonal
difference
in carc
a
ss
persist
ence rates at wind farms with snow
, Hokkaido, Japan
.
Ornithol
ogical
Sci
ence
19: 63
–
119
S
mallwood CV
7 71
.
Smallwood
, K. S.
and
M. L.
Morrison. 2018. N
est
-
site selection
in a high
-
d
ensi
ty colony of
burrowing owl
s. Journal of Raptor Research
52:454
-
470
.
Smal
l
wood, 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 .
Jo
urnal of Wildlif
e
Management 82:1169
-
1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search in
tervals
under
-
esti
mate bird and bat fatalities caused by
wind turbi
nes. Wildlife Soc
iety Bulletin
41:224
-
230
.
Smallwood, K. S.
2017
. The challenges of
addressing wildlif
e impacts when
r
epowering
wind
energy proj
ects
.
Pages 175
-
187 in Köppel, J., Edito
r,
Wind
Energy and
Wildlife Impacts
:
Proceedings from the
CWW2015 Conference.
Spring
er.
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 d
irections to reconcile wind
turbine
–
wildlife interactions. Pages 2
55 -
276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife
Impacts: Proceedings from the CW
W2015 Conference
. Springer. Cham, Switzer
land.
Smallwood, K.
S.
201
7 . Monitorin
g birds
.
M. Perro
w, Ed.,
Wildlife and Wind Farms
-
Conflicts
and Solutions, Volume 2
.
Pelagic Publishing
,
Exeter,
United Kingdom.
www.bit.ly/2v3cR
9Q
Smallwood, K.
S.
,
L.
Neher, and D.
A. Bell.
201
7 .
Siting to
Minimiz
e
Raptor Co
llisions: an
example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resourc
e Area
.
M. Perrow, Ed.,
Wildlife
and Wind Farms
-
Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2.
P
elagic Publishin
g
,
Exeter,
United
Kingdom.
www.b
i
t.ly/2v3cR
9Q
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 rece nt approaches
.
Human
–
Wildlife
Interaction
s 10(1):
7 -
18 .
Sa
dar, M.
J.
,
D. S.
-
M.
G
uz
man, A.
Mete, J. F
oley
,
N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C.
G
rosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J.
Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D.
A. Bell
, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015.
Mange
Caused by a
n
ovel
Micnemido
coptes
m
ite in a Golden Ea
gle (
Aquila chrysaetos
)
.
Journal of
Avia
n Med
ic
i
ne and Sur
gery
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 habi
tat conservation
: concepts, challenges, an
d solutions.
John Hopkins University Pre
ss, Bal
t
imore, Mar
yland, 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 wil
d
Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in Ca
liforni
a
.
Emergin
g Infectious Diseases
20(10):1716
-
1718.
Smallwood, K.
S. 2013.
Introduction: Wind
-
energy development and wildlife conservation.
120
S
mallwood CV
8 Wildlife Society Bulle
tin 37: 3
-
4. Sm
allwood, K.
S. 2013. Com
paring bird and bat fatality
-
rate estimat
es amon
g
North Ame
rican
wind
-
energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin
37:
19 -
33 .
+
Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S.,
L. Neher
, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culve
r. 2013.
Nest
in
g Burrowing Owl
Abundance
in t
he Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area,
Califor
n
ia
. Wildl
ife Society Bulletin:
37:
787
-
795
.
Smallwood, K. S., D.
A.
Bell, B
. Karas, and S.
A.
Snyder. 2013
. Response to Huso a
nd Erickson
Comments o
n Novel Scave
nger Removal Tri
als
. Journal of Wildlife
Management
77: 216
-
225
.
Bell, D. A., and
K. S.
S
mallwood.
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
tr
ials increase es
timates of wind turbine
-
ca
used avian fatality rates.
Journal of Wi
ldlife
M
anagement
74:
1089
-
1097 + Online Supplemental Material
.
Smallwood, K. S., L.
Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map
-
based repowering and reorganization of a
wind resour
ce area to minim
ize burrowing owl and othe
r bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915
-
943.
http://www.mdpi.com/1996
-
1 073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto.
2009
.
Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizo
otic on Yellow
-
B
illed
Magpie, American Cro
w, and other Birds in the Sacramento Vall
ey, Cal
i
fornia. T
he Condor
111:247
-
254
.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morri
son.
2009
. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality
in Wind Energy Developments: The A
ltamont Pass Win
d Resource Area, Californi
a.
Journal of
Wildlife Management
73:1082
-
1098
.
Smallwood
, K. S. and B. Karas.
2009
.
Avian
and Bat Fatality Rates at Old
-
G
eneration and
Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management
73 :
1062
-
1071
.
Smal
lwood, K. S. 2008. Wind
power company compliance with mitigation
plans i
n
the Altam
ont
Pass Wind Resource Area. Environment
al & Energy Law Policy Jou
rnal 2(2):229
-
285.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 200
8 . Bird Mortality in the Alt
amont Pass Wind
Resource
Area, California.
Journal of Wildlife Management
72 :
215
-
2 23
.
Sm
a
llwood, 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. Rugg
e. 2007
. Burrowing owl
m
ortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resour
ce Area
.
Journal
of Wildlife Management
71 :
1513
-
1524
.
Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallw
ood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting
success of Pass
erines.
J. Wildlife Manag
ement 70:522
-
531
.
121
S
mallwood CV
9 Smallwood, K.S. 2002.
Habit
a
t models b
ased on numerical comparisons. Pages 83
-
95 in
Predicting species o
ccurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.
Morrison, M. Ra
phael, J. Haufle
r, and B. Wall, editors.
Island Press, Covello, California.
Mor
rison,
M
. L., K. S
. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002.
Creating
h
abitat through
p
lant
r
elocation:
Lessons from Valley
e
lderberry
longhorn beetle mitigation
.
Ecological
Rest
oration
21 :
95 -
1 00
.
Zhang, M., K. S. Smal
lwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating
indicat
o
rs of ecol
ogical health and
integrity to assess risks to sustainable agricult
ure and native biota.
Pages 757
-
768
in
D.J.
Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nie
lsen, C.O. Quals
et, and A.B. Damania (eds.
),
Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis
Publis
h
ers, 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, an
d A.B. Damania
(eds.), Managing for Healt
hy Ecos
y
stems, Lew
is Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Th
e allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Ca
nadian Journal o
f Zoology 79:1634
-
1640.
S
mallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. S
tudy de
s
ign and in
terpretation of Sorex density
estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 3
8:141
-
161.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Ke ckler, C. Bailey
, and
K. Brown. 2001. Su
ggested standards for science applied to
conserv
a
tion issue
s. Transactions
of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:4
0 -
49. Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable
Agro
-
ecological
Solution to Water Shortag
e in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). E
nvironm
e
ntal
Plann
ing and Management 44:345
-
355.
Smallwood,
K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge,
Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.
Intra
-
and inter
-
turbine stri
ng comparison of
fatalities to animal burr
ow densities at Altamont
Pass. Pages 23
-
37 in S
.
S. Schwar
tz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian
-
Wind Power
Planning Meet
ing IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001.
Comparing pocke
t gopher (
Thomomys bottae
)
density in alfalfa stands to assess mana
gement
a
nd conserv
ation goals in northern California.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Envi
ronment 87: 93
-
109.
Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful u nits of animal d
emography.
Restoration Ec
ology 9:253
-
261.
Smallwood, K.
S. 2000.
A cro
s
swalk from
the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and
real HCPs. Envi
ronmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23
-
35. Smallwood, K.
S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison
. 1999. Using t
he best scientific data fo
r endangered
species conservation. Envir
onmenta
l
Managemen
t 24:421
-
435.
122
S
mallwood CV
10 Smallwood, K.
S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance
among species of Mammalian Carnivora.
Environmental Conservation
26:102
-
111.
Smallwood,
K.S. 1999. Su
ggested study attributes f
or making useful population density estim
ates.
T
r
ansactions
of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society
35: 76
-
82. Smallw
ood, K.
S. and M.
L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of p
ocket gophers (G
eomyidae). Southwestern N
aturalist 44:173
-
183.
Smallwood, K.
S. a
nd M.
L
.
Morrison.
1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (
Geomyidae
)
density. Sou
thwestern Naturalist 44:73
-
82. Smallwood, K.
S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (
Thomomy
s
spp.) to regen
erate forests in
clearcuts
. Environmental Conservation
26:59
-
65 .
Smallw
o
od, K.
S.
1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Weste rn Section of
the Wildlife Society 34:32
-
38. Smallwood, K.
S. 1998. On the evidence n
eeded for listin
g northern goshawks (
Accip
ter gentilis
)
under the Endangered Specie
s Act:
a reply to
Kennedy.
J. Raptor Research 32:323
-
329.
Smallwood, K.
S., B. Wil
cox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris
.
1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat
Conservation Plan
of Yolo County,
California, USA. Environm
ental Management 22: 947
-
958.
Smallwood,
K.
S.,
M.
L. Morr
ison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting h
azardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831 -
847
.
Smallwood, K.
S, and
C.
M. Schonewald
. 1998. Study design and
interpretation for mammalian
carnivore de
nsity e
s
timates. O
ecologia 113:474
-
491.
Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K.
S. Smallwood. 19
98. 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 m
anageme
n
t 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. Monitor
ing the dispersal of conta
minants
by wildlife at nuclear weapons pr
oductio
n
and waste
storage facilities. The Environmentalist
17:289
-
295.
Smallwood,
K.
S. 1997. Interpreting puma (
Puma concolor
) density estimates for theory and
manageme
nt. Environment
al Conservation 24(3):283
-
289.
Smallwood, K.
S. 1997. Managing v
ertebra
t
es in cove
r crops: a first study. American Journal of
Alternative Agricultur
e 11:155
-
160.
123
S
mallwood CV
11 Smallwood, K.
S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi
-
scale influences of gophers o
n alfalfa yield
and
quality. Field Crops R
esearch 49:159
-
168.
Smallwood, K.
S. and
C. Sch
o
newald. 1
996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial
, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329
-
335.
Smallwood, K.
S., G. Jones, and C. Scho
newald. 1996. S
patial scaling of allometr
y for terrestrial,
mammalian carnivores.
Oecolog
i
a
107:588
-
594.
Van Vuren, D. and K.
S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological managem
ent of vertebrate pests in
agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticultur e 13:41
-
64. Sma
llwood, K.
S., B.
J. Nakam
oto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association ana
lysis o
f
raptors o
n an
agricultural landscape. Pages 177
-
190
in
D.M. Bird, D.E. Varla
nd, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors
in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Erichse
n, A.
L., K.
S.
Smallwood, A.
M. Commandat
ore, D.
M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. Wh
ite
-
tai
l
ed Kite mo
vement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 16 6 -
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 populati
on dens
i
ty for ass
essing habitat
-
use across
an agricultural landscape
. J. Raptor Res
earch 29:172
-
178.
Smallwood, K.
S. and W.
A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher popula
tions and their
abatement in
forest planta
tions. Forest Science 41:284
-
296.
Small
wood, K
.
S. and E.
L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Fe
lis
concolor californica
population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251
-
259
Smallwoo
d, K.
S. 1994.
Site invasibility by exot
ic birds and mammals. Biological Conserv
ation
6 9
:251
-
259.
Smallwood, K.
S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion popula
tions. Southwestern Naturalist
39:67
-
72. Smallwood, K.
S. 1993. Understanding ecolog
ical pattern and
process by association an
d order.
Acta Oecologica 14(3):443
-
462.
Smallw
o
od, K.
S.
and E.
L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying in dividual
mountain lions
Felis concolor
by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51
-
5 9.
Smallwood, K
.
S. 1993. Mountain lion
vocalizations and hunting behavior. The
Southw
e
stern
Natu
ralist 38:65
-
67. Smallwood, K.
S. and T.
P. Salmon. 1992. A rati
ng system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.
Biological Conservation 62:149
-
159.
124
S
mallwood CV
12 S
mallwood, K.
S.
1990. Turbulence and the
ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thes
is, Uni
v
ersity
of
California, Davis.
Peer
-
reviewed Reports
Smallwood, K. S., and L
.
Neher. 201
7 .
Comparing
bird and bat use data for siting new wind power
g
eneration.
R
eport
CEC
-
500
-
20 17
-
019
,
California Energy
Commission Public Interest Energy
Researc
h progr
a
m
, Sacrame
nto, California
.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/C
EC
-
500
-
2017
-
019/
CEC
-
500
-
2017
-
019.pdf
and
http://www.energy.ca.gov
/
2017publications/CEC
-
500
-
2017
-
019/CEC
-
500
-
2017
-
019
-
APA
-
F.pdf
Smallwood, K. S. 2016.
Bird and bat imp
acts and behaviors at old
wind t
urbines at Forebay,
Altamont Pass W
ind Res
o
urce Area
.
Report
CEC
-
500
-
2016
-
066,
California Energy
Commission Public Int
e
rest Energy Research program
, Sacramento, California.
http://www.ener
gy.ca.g
o
v/publicat
ions/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC
-
500
-
2016
-
066
Sinclair, K.
a
nd E. DeGeorge. 2016.
Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact
-
Reduction Strate
gies at Wind Energy Projec
ts
. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.
Morris
o
n, eds.,
T
echnical Report
NREL/TP
-
5000
-
65624
, National Renewable Energy
Labo
r
atory, Golden, Colorado.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 201 6 .
Final
201
2 -
201
5 Report Avian and
Bat Moni
toring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepare
d for N
e
xtEra Ener
gy Resources,
Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood
,
J.
Szewczak
,
and B. Karas. 201
4 . Final
201
3 -
201
4 Annual Report
Avian and Bat Monitori
ng Project Vasco
Winds, LLC. Prepared for
NextEra Energy
Resources, Livermore, Cal
ifornia
.
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 R
esources
, Liverm
ore,
California.
http://www.
a
ltamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year
_1.pdf
Smallwo
od, K. S., L. Neher, D. Be
ll, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and
S. Lop
e
z. 200
9 .
Range
Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burr o
wing Owls and Other
Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the Ca
lifornia
Energy Commission
, Public Interest Energy Research
–
Envir
onmenta
l
Area, Con
tract No.
CEC
-
500
-
2008
-
080
. Sacramento, California.
183
pp.
http://www.e
nergy.ca.gov/
2008publicat
ions/CEC
-
500
-
2008
-
080/CEC
-
500
-
2008
-
080.PD
F
Sma
l
lwood, K.
S., and L. Neher. 200
9 . Map
-
Based Repowering of the Altamont Pas
s
Wind
Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind
Turbines.
Final Report to the Califo
rnia Energy Commission, Public Interest E
nergy R
e
search
–
E
nvironmental Area, Contract No.
CEC
-
500
-
2009
-
065
. Sacramento, Cal
i
fornia.
http://
www.energy.ca.g
ov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubN
um=CEC
-
5 00
-
2009
-
06 5
125
S
mallwood CV
13 Smallwood,
K. S., K.
Hunting,
L.
Neher,
L.
Spiegel and
M.
Yee
.
2007. Indicating Threats to Birds
Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California.
Fina
l Report to the
California Energy
Commissi
on, Public Interest Energy Research
–
Env
ironmen
t
al Area, C
ontract No.
Submitted
but not published
. Sacramento, California.
Smallwood, K. S. a
n
d C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality
in
the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, March 19
98 –
September 2
001 Final Report. Nationa
l Renewable Energy Laborator
y,
NREL/SR
-
50 0
-
36973
.
Golden, C
olorado. 410 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Deve
l
oping methods to reduce bird mortality in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final R
eport to the Cal
ifornia Energy Commission
,
Public
Interest Energy Rese
arch
–
Enviro
nmental
Area
,
Cont
ract No. 500
-
01 -
019.
Sacramento,
California.
5 31
pp.
http://www.al
tamontsrcarchive
.or
g/alt_doc/cec_final_rep
ort_08_11_04.pdf
Thelander
, C.G. S. Sma
llwood,
and L. Rug
ge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the
Altamont Pass
Win
d Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998
—
December 2000.
National Renewab
le Energy Labora
tory, NREL/SR
-
500
-
33829.
U.S. Department of
Commerce,
National Tec
hnical
I
nformation
Service, Springfield, Virginia.
86 pp.
Thelander, C.G.
,
S. Smal
l
woo
d, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resou
rce Area
–
a pro
gress report. Proceedings
of the American Wind Energy
Association,
Washin
g
ton D.C.
16 pp.
Non
-
Peer Reviewed Publications
Small
wood, 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
Japanes
e translation by T
.
Kurosawa
.
90 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 200
9 . Mit
i
gation in
U.S. Wind Farms. Pages
68 -
76 in H. Hötker (
Ed.
)
,
Birds of
Prey an
d
Wi
nd Farms
: Analysis of prob
lems and possible solutions
. Documentation of an
Internatio
nal Workshop in
Berlin,
21st and 22nd Octo
be
r 2008.
Michael
-
Otto
-
Instiut im NABU,
G
oosstro
o
t 1, 24861
Bergenhusen, Germany.
http://b
ergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/
Smallwood, K.
S. 2007. Notes
a
nd r
ec
ommendations o
n wi
ld
life impacts c
aused by Japan
’s wind
pow
er d
eve
l
opment. P
ages 242
-
245 in
Yukihiro
Kominami,
Tatsuya
Ura, Koshitawa, and
Tsu
c
hiy
a, Editors,
Wildlife and W
ind Turbine Report
5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.
Thelander, C.G.
and S. S
mallwood. 2007.
Th
e Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Ef
fects o
n
Birds: A
Case History. Pages 25
-
46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Jans
s
, M
iguel Ferrer
Editors, Bird
s and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid:
Quercus.
Nehe
r, L. an
d S. Smallwood. 2
00 5. Forecasting and minimizing avian mo
rtality
in siting
wind
turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redland s
, C
alifornia.
Jennifer David
son and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydroge n highway.
Coms
tock’s B
usiness, August 20
04 :18
-
20, 22, 24
-
26. 126
S
mallwood CV
14 Jennifer Davidson
and Sh
a
wn Smallwo
od. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers
demand more o
i
l w
hile opposing refinery dev
elopment. Comstock’s Business, November
2004:26
-
27, 29
-
30. Smallwood, K
.S. 200
2. Review of “The
A
tlas of Endangered Species.” By Richar
d Macka
y
.
Environ
mental Conservation 30:210
-
211.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002
. Review o
f
“T
he Endangered Species Act.
History, Conservation, and
Public Policy.” By Brian Czech
a
nd Paul B. Kra
usman.
Environmental Cons
er
vation
29 :
269
-
270
.
Smallwood, K.S. 1
997. S
p
atial scal
ing of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proce
e
din
gs of 44th Annual Meeting,
Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Bi
ological Science
s, Unive
rsity of Arkansas,
F
ayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. E
stimati
n
g prairie
dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in
Proceedings of 44
t
h A
nnual Meeting, Southwester
n Association of Naturalists. Department of
Biological Sci
ences, Universit
y of Ark
ansas, Fayettevill
e.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrow
ing par
a
meters inf
luencing toxic waste management.
Abstract in Proceedings of Meeti
n
g,
Western Section of the Wil
dlife Society.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. S
tudy and interpr
etive de
sign effects on mo
un
tain lion
density estimates. Abstract,
page 93
in D.W. Pa
dley, ed.,
Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion
Workshop
, Southern Califo
r
nia
Chapter, The Wildlife Soc
iety. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Te
n years of mount
ain lion
track survey. Pag
e
94 in
D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page
94 in D
.
W. Padley,
ed.,
Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion
Workshop
, Southern California
C
hap
ter, The Wildlife Society.
135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photogra
phic recording o
f mounta
in lion tracks. P
ag
es
75 -
75 in D.W. Padley, ed.,
Proceedin
gs 5th
M
ountain Li
on Workshop
, Southern California
Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 13
5 pp
.
Smallwood, K.S., B. Wil
cox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentat ion effects.
Br
ief 8, E
cosystem Indicator
s
Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institu
te for
S
ustainable
Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability
–
The Presidio, PO
Box
29075, San Francisco,
CA
94129
-
0075.
Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecos
ystem indicators
model o
verview. Brief 2,
E
cosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 M
arch, 1
9 95. Insti
tute for Sustainable Development,
Thoreau Center for Sustainabilit
y
–
The Presidio, PO Box 29075
, San Francisco, CA 94129
-
0075.
EIP Associates. 1996. Y
olo County Habit
at Conse
rvation Plan. Yol
o
County Planning and
Development Departm
ent, Wo
o
dland, Cal
ifornia.
Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustaina b
le
agriculture and agricultur
al
127
S
mallwood CV
15 sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO , 2nd Industrial
Symp. W
SAA.
Taipei, Taiw
an
.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994.
Landsc
a
pe strateg
ies for biological control and IPM. Pages
454
-
464
in
W. Dehai, ed
.
, P
roc. International Confere
nce on Integrated Resource Management
for Sustainable Agric
ulture. Beijing
Agricul
tural University,
Be
ijing, China.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. G
eng. 1
9 93. Alfal
fa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium
23:105
-
8. S
m
all
wood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1
993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alf alfa.
Californi
a Alfalf
a Symposium 23:86
-
89 .
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh.
1992.
T
he use of
track counts for mountain lion population
census. Pages 59
-
67 in
C
. B
raun, ed. Mountain lion
-
H
uman Interaction Symposium and
Workshop. Colorado Division
of Wildlife, Fo
rt Colli
ns.
Smallwood, K.
S.
and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentia
ting mo
u
ntain lion
and dog tracks. Pages
58 -
63 in
Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mou
n
tai
n Lion Workshop. Arizona
Game and Fish
Department, Ph
o
e
nix.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S.
Smallwood. 198
9. Tech
niques for monitor
in
g mountain lion population
levels. Pag
es 69
-
7 1
in
Smith,
R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona
Game
and
F
ish
Department, Ph
o
e
nix.
Rep
orts to or by
Alameda County S
cientific
R
eview
C
ommittee
(N
ote: all documen
ts linke
d to
SRC website h
av
e since been removed by Alameda County)
Small
w
ood, K. S.
20 14
.
Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass
WRA
.
SR
C
document P
284
,
Count
y of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Small
wood, K. S. 201
3. Long
-
Term Tr
ends in
Fatality Rates of
Bi
rds and Bats in the Altamont
Pass Wind
Resourc
e
Area, Cal
ifornia.
SR
C document
R
68 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard,
California
.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013.
I
nter
-
annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 19
99 through
2012
in the A
ltamont Pass Wind
Re
sources Area
.
SR
C document P
268
,
Count
y of A
l
a
meda,
Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, K. S.
2012.
General Protocol for
P
erf
orming Detection Trials i
n
the FloDesign Study
of the Safety of a Closed
-
bladed Wind
Turbine
.
SR
C do
cument P
246
,
County of A
la
me
da,
Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood,
K. S.,
l
. Neher, a
nd J. Mount. 2012. B
urrowing owl distribution and abundance stud
y
th
rough two breeding seasons
and intervening non
-
breeding period in
the Altamont Pass W
ind
Resource Are
a, C
alif
ornia
.
SR
C docume
nt
P
24 5
,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, Cali
fornia.
Smallwo
od, K. S
2012. D
raft study design
for testing collision risk of F
l
ode
sign wind
turbi
ne in
128
S
mallwood CV
16 forme
r AES Seawest wind projects in the A
ltamont
Pass Wind Resou
rce A
rea (APWRA)
.
SR
C
do
cument P
238
,
Count
y
of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Sma
llwood,
L. Neher,
and J. Mount. 2012. W
inter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribu
t
ion
and
abundance study in th
e A
ltamont
Pass Wind Resource Area, C
alifornia
.
SR
C docume
nt P
232
,
County
of A
lame
da, Hayw
ard, Calif
or
nia.
Smallwood, S. 2012.
S
tatus o
f avian
utilizatio
n data collected in the
A
ltamont
P
ass
W
ind
R
esource
A
rea, 2005
-
201
1 .
SR
C document P
231
,
County
of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Ne
her, and J. Moun
t. 2011
. Monitoring Bur
ro
w Use of Win
tering
Burrowing Owls.
SR
C
docume
n
t P
229
,
Co
unty of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Sma
llwood, K. S., L. Nehe
r
, a
nd J. Mount. 2011. Nesti
ng Burrowing Owl Distribution and
Abundance in the Altamont
Pass Wind Resou
rce Area
, California.
SR
C
d
ocument P
228
,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ar
d, Cali
f
ornia.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision R
isk
of Flodesign Wind Turbine
in Patters
on Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Reso
urce Area (APWRA
).
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_doc
u
men
t_list_with_reference_numb
ers.pdf
S
mallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls
Across the Altam
ont Pass
Wind Resource
Are
a.
SR
C document P
20 5
,
County of A
lameda,
Hayw
ard
,
Californi
a.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Ac r
oss
the Altamont Pass Wind
Re
source Area.
SR
C document P15
5 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard,
California.
SR
C
docume
nt P1
98 ,
County of
A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwo
od, K.
S
. 2010.
Co
mments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update
.
SR
C document
P1
91 ,
Cou
n
ty
of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, Calif
ornia.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter
-
turbine Comparison
s of Fatality Ra
tes in t
he Altamont Pas
s W
in
d
Resource Area.
SR
C document P1
89 ,
Co
unty of
A
lameda, H
ayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Rev
iew of the Dece
m
ber
2010 Draft of M
-
21: Altam
ont Pass Wind
Resource Area Bird Collision Study.
SR
C docu
ment P1
90 ,
Count
y of A
la
meda, Hayw
ard,
Cal
if
ornia.
Alameda County SRC (Shawn Sma
llwood,
Jim Estep,
Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).
Comments on the Notic
e
of
Preparation for a Program
matic Environmental Impact Report on
Revised CUPs for Wind
Tur
bines in the
Alameda
County portion of
th
e Altamont Pass.
SR
C
document P1
83 ,
Co
unty of
A
lameda, H
ayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Revie
w of Monitori
n
g I
mplementation Plan.
SR
C do
cument P1
80 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Bur
ger, J., J. Este
p, S. Or
loff, S. Smallwood
,
and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Com
ments on Cal
WEA
Res
e
arch Plan.
SR
C document P1
74 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
129
S
mallwood CV
17 A
lam
eda County SRC (Sma
llwood,
K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC C
omments on Monit
oring Te
am’s Draft Study P
la
n for Future Monitoring.
SR
C document
P
1 68
,
C
o
unty of A
l
ameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Revi
e
w o
f American Kestrel
-
Burrowi
ng owl (KB) Scavenger
Removal Adjustments Reported in Alame
da County Avian
Monito
ri
ng Team’s M21 for
th
e
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area
.
SR
C docum
e
nt P1
71 ,
C
ounty of A
lameda, Hayw
ard,
California.
Smallwood, K. S.
2010.
Ass
essment of Three Proposed
Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing
Raptor Fatalities in
the Altamont Pa
ss Wind
Resource Area.
SR
C
document P1
61 ,
County of
A
lameda, Hayw
a
rd, Cal
i
fornia.
Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of
additional wind
t
urb
ine hazard ratings
in the
Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alam eda County Scien
tific
Re
view Committee.
S
R
C
document P153, County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, Ca
l
ifornia.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency o
f t
he Monitorin
g Program.
SR
C
document P15
8 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, S.
2010.
S
ummary of Alameda
Co
un
ty SRC Recommendations and Concerns a
nd
Subs
e
quent Acti
ons.
SR
C document P1
47 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Sma
llwood, S. 2010.
Progres
s of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.
SR
C doc
ument
P1
48 ,
Coun
ty of A
l
ameda, Hayw
ard, Ca
li
fornia.
SR
C document P1
48 ,
County of A
lameda,
Hayw
ard, C
alifornia.
Smallwood, S. 2010.
Old
-
generation wind turbines r
a
ted
for raptor collision haza
rd
by Alameda
County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, a
n Update on thos
e Rate
d
in 2007, and an Up
da
te
on Tier Rankings.
SR
C document P15
5 ,
Count
y
of A
lamed
a, Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010.
Review of Amer
i
can
Kestrel
-
Burrowing owl (KB
) Scavenger Removal
Adjustments Reported in Alameda County
Avian Monitoring
Team’s
M21 for the Altamo
nt
Pass Wind Resource Area.
SR
C document
P
154
,
C
ounty of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010.
Fatality R
a
tes
in the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area 1998
-
2009.
Alameda County SRC document
P
-
14 5.
Smallwood,
K. S.
2010.
Commen
ts on
R
evised M
-
21: Report on Fatality Monito
ring in
the
Altamo
nt Pass Wind Resource Area.
SR
C document P1
44 ,
County of A
lameda,
Hay
w
ard,
California.
Sm
all
wood, K. S. 2009.
SR
C document P
129
,
County of A
lameda, H
ayw
ard, Californ
ia.
Sm
allwood, K.
S. 20
09 . Smallwood’s review of M32.
SR
C docu
ment P1
1 1
,
County
of A
lameda,
Hayw
ard, California.
130
S
mallwood CV
18 Smallwood, K. S. 2
009. 3
rd
Y
e
ar
Review of 16 Conditional U
se Permits for Windworks, Inc. and
Altamont Infrastructure
Company, LLC. C
omment l
etter to East Coun
ty
Board of Zoning
Adjustments. 10 pp + 2
attach
m
ents.
Sma
llwood, K. S. 2008.
Weighing Remaining Workload of Al
ameda Count
y
SR
C against
Proposed Budget
Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp.
Ala
meda County SRC
(Smallwo
od, K. S., S. Orlo
ff
, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 20
08. SR
C
c
omments
on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21.
SR
C document P1
07 ,
Co
unty of
A
lameda, Hayw
ard,
California.
Smallwo
od, K. S. 2008.
Burrowing
owl carca
ss distribution
around w
ind turbines
.
SR
C
d
ocument
P1
06 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ar
d, Cali
f
ornia.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008.
Assessment of
relocation/removal
of Altam
o
nt
Pass
wind turbines rated a
s
hazardous
by the Alameda County SRC.
SR
C document P1
03 ,
County of A
lamed
a, Hayw
a
rd,
California.
S
mal
lwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008.
Su
mmary o
f
wind turb
ine
-
free ridgelines within and around
the APWRA.
SR
C document P1
0 2
,
C
ounty of A
lameda, Hayw
ard,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008.
Co
mparison of
mort
ality es
timates
in the Alt
am
ont Pass
Wind Resource
Area when
restri
cted to
recent fat
alities
.
SR
C document P1
01 ,
County of
A
lameda, Hayw
ard, Californi
a
.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008.
On the
misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fat
alities missed
d
uring on
e search and found
l
ater
.
SR
C document P
97 ,
County of A
lam
eda, Ha
y
w
ard,
Cali
fornia.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors o u
tsi
de the APWRA.
SR
C documen
t P
88 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Smallwood
, K
. S. 2008.
Comparis
on of mortality es
ti
mates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resourc
e
Area.
SR
C docume
nt P
76 ,
County of A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Alameda County
S
RC
(Smallwood, K. S., S. Orlo
ff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee).
2010
.
Guidelines fo
r siting wind tu
rbines r
ecommended for rel
oc
ation to minimize potential collision
-
r
elated
m
ortality o
f four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pas
s Wind Resource Are
a
.
SR
C
document P
70 ,
County o
f A
lameda, Hayw
ard, California.
Alameda County SRC (
J. B
urger,
Smallwood
, K. S.,
S. Orloff, J. Est
ep
,
and J. Yee).
2007.
First
DRAFT of H
azardou
s
Rating Sc
ale
First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale
.
SR
C document
P
69 ,
Coun
t
y o
f A
lameda, Hayw
ard, Califo
rnia.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff,
J. Estep, J. Bur
ger, and
J. Yee).
Decembe
r
11,
2007. SRC selection of dangerous w
ind tur
b
ines.
Ala
meda County SRC document P
-
67. 8 pp.
131
S
mallwood CV
19 Smallw
ood, S. October 6,
2 007
. Smallwood’
s answers to
Audubon’s q
ueries a
bout the SRC’s
recommended four
-
month wi
nter shutdown of
wind tu
rbines
in the Alta
mo
nt Pass.
Alameda
County SRC document P
-
23. Smallwood,
K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting
opinion o
n recommendation to
a
ppr
ove
of the AWI
Blade Paint
ing Study.
Alameda County SRC document P
-
60. Smallwood,
K. S. July 26,
2007.
Effects of
monitor
in
g duration and inter
-
annual variability
on
pre
c
ision of w
ind
-
turbine caused mortality estimates
in the
Altamont Pass Wind R
e
sou
rce Area,
California. SRC
Document P44.
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Op
inion of some SR
C member
s that the period
ov
er
which post
-
management mortality will
be est
i
mated rema
ins undefined.
SRC Document P43.
Smallwood,
K. S. July 19, 2007
.
S
mallwood’s response to P24
G.
SRC Document P41,
4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. April 23,
2007. New Info
rmation R
egarding Alameda
Co
unty SRC Decision of
11 April 2007 to G
rant FP
L
E Credits
for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2
004.
SRC Document P
2 6.
Alameda County SRC (Small
wood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abs tained]).
April
17, 2007
. SRC Statement
in
Support of the Monitoring
Program Scop
e and B
u
dget.
Sm
allwood, K. S. April 15, 2007.
Verification
of Tier 1 & 2 Wind T
u
rbi
ne Shutdowns and
Reloc
atio
ns. SRC Document P22.
Smallwood
, S. A
p
ril 15, 20
07. Progress of Avian Wildlife Prote
ction Pro
gram & Schedule.
A
lam
eda County SRC (Smallwood,
K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April
3, 2007.
Alame
da County
Scientific Revie
w
Committee
replies to the parties’ respo
nses to
its querie
s
and to comments
from the California Office o
f the Atto
rney Gener
a
l.
SRC Document S20.
Smallw
ood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Rem
oval of T
ier I
& II Turbin
es
. SRC Document S19
.
Smallwood, S. M
arch 8,
2007. Sma
llwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to
Queries from the
SRC
and
Comments from the Califor
nia Office of the Attorney General.
SRC
Document S16.
Sm
allwood, S. Mar
ch 8, 200
7. Estimated Eff
ec
ts of Proposed Measures to be Applied t
o 2,500
Wind Turbi
nes in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan.
SR
C Document S15
.
Ala
m
eda
County SRC (Smallwood, K.
S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February
7,
2007. Analy
sis of Mo
nitoring Program
in
Context of 1/1//2
007 Settlement Agreem
ent.
Smallwood,
S. January 8, 2007.
Smallwood’s Concerns ov
er the Agreement to
S
ett
le the CEQA
Challenges. S
RC Document S5
.
132
S
mallwood CV
20 Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S.
Orloff, J. Este
p, J. Bur
ger, and J. Yee).
December 19,
2006. Altamont Scientific
Review
Committee
(SRC) Recommendations to the County on the
Avi
an Monitoring Team C
o
nsu
ltants’
Budget and Organiz
ation.
Reports
to C
lients
Smallwood, K. S. 2020.
Comparison of bird and bat fa
tality rates among
utility
-
scale solar projects
in California
. Report to undisclosed client.
Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell
,
an
d S. Standish. 2018.
Ski
lled dog detections of bat and small bird
carcasses in wind
turbine fatalit
y
monitoring
. Report to E
ast B
ay Regional Park Di
strict,
Oakland,
Califor
n
ia.
Smallwood, K. S. 2018.
Adde
ndum to Comparis
on of Wind Turbine Collisi
on Hazard Model
Performance: One
-
year Po
st
-
cons
t
ruction As
sessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden
Hills
. Report to
Au
d
ubo
n Socie
ty, NextEra Energy,
and the California Attorney General
.
Small
wood, K. S., an
d L. Neher. 201
8 . Siting wind turbines t
o minimize raptor collisions at
Rooney Ra
nch and
Sand Hill
Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resourc
e Area. Report
to
S
-
Pow
er
,
Sal
t Lake City
,
Utah
.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017.
Summary of a
burrowing owl conserv
ation workshop
.
Report to
Santa
Clara Val
ley Habitat Agency
, Morgan Hill, Californ
ia.
Sm
a
llwood, K.
S., and L. Neher. 201
8 .
Comparison of
wind
turbine collision ha
z
ard
model
performance prepare
d for repowering projects
in the Altamont Pass Wind Resourc
es Area
.
Report
to NextEra Energy Resourc
es, Inc., Office of the California Attorn
ey Gene
r
al, Audubo
n
Society, East Bay Regional Park District
.
S
mallwood, K. S., and
L.
Neher.
2016.
Siting wind
turbines to minimize raptor collisions at
Summit Winds Rep
owering Project,
Altamont Pass Wind Resour
ce Area
.
Report to
Salka
, Inc.,
Washingt
on, D.C
.
Smallwoo
d, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 201
7 . Mi
tigating golden eagl
e
i
m
pacts
f
rom
r
epowering Alta
mont
Pass Wind Resource Area
a
nd
e
xpanding Los Vaqueros Res
ervoir
.
R
eport
to East Contra Costa Count
y Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy a
nd Cont
r
a
Costa
Wa
ter District
.
Smallwood, K. S. 2016.
R
eview of avian
-
solar science plan
.
Report to
Center
for Biological
Diversity
. 28 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2016.
Repo
rt of Altamont Pass
r
ese
arch as Vasco Winds mitiga
tion. Report to
NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of
the California A
ttorney General, Audubon S
ociety,
East Bay Region
al Park District.
Smallw
o
od, K. S.,
and L. Neher. 2016
. Siting Wind Turbines to
Minimize Raptor
col
l
isi
ons
at
Sand Hill
Repowerin
g Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogi
n, Inc.
,
Waltham
,
Ma
ssachusett
s
.
133
S
mallwood CV
21 Smallwoo
d, K. S., and L. Neher.
2015a.
Siting
w
i
nd tur
b
ines to mi
nimize raptor collisions
at
Golden Hills Repow
ering Project, Altam
o
nt
Pass Wind Resource Area
.
Report to
NextEra
Energy Resources
, Livermore, California
.
Smallwood, K. S
., and L. Neher. 2015
b
.
Siting
wind turbines to
minimize raptor c
o
llisio
n
s
at
Golde
n Hills
North
Repowering Project, Altamont Pas
s Wind Resource Area
.
R
eport to
NextEra Energy Re
sources
, Livermore, California
.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. N
eher. 2015
c
. S
iting
wind turbines to min
imize raptor collisions
at the
Patterson
P
ass Re
p
owering Pr
oject, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area
.
Repo
rt to EDF
Renewable
E
ner
gy, Oakland, California.
Small
wood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014.
Early
assessment of
wind turbine la
yout
i
n Summit
W
ind
Proje
ct
. Report to
Altamont
Winds LLC
, Tracy,
Califo
r
nia.
Smal
lwood, K. S. 2015.
Review of
avian use surve
y report
for the Lon
g
boa
t Solar Project
. Report
t
o EDF Renewable
Energy
, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K.
S. 2014. Info
rmation
needed f
or solar p
roject impacts assessmen
t
a
nd mitigation
p
lannin
g
. Report
to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco
, California.
Small
w
ood
, K. S. 20
14. Monitoring
fossorial mammals
i
n Vasco Caves Regional
Preserve,
Califo
rnia: Report of
Progress for the p
eriod 2
006
-
2014
. Report to Eas
t Bay Regional Pa
r
k
Dist
r
ict, Oakla
nd, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013.
Firs
t
-
year estimates of
b
ird
and bat fatality rates at
old wind turbines,
Forebay areas o
f Altamont Pass Wind Res
ource Area
. Rep
ort to FloDesign in suppor
t of EIR.
Smallwood,
K. S.
and W. Pear
s
on
.
2 0
13. Neotr
opical
bird monitoring of burrowing owls
(
Athe
ne
cunicularia
)
,
Nav
a
l A
ir Station Lemoore, Califo
rnia
. Tierra Data, Inc. report to
Naval Air
Station Lemoor
e
.
Smallwood, K
. S. 2013.
Winter
survey
s
for San Joaquin kangar
oo rat (
Dipodomys
nitrat
o
ides
) and
burrowing owls (
Athene cunicularia
) within Air
Operations at Naval
Air
Station, Lemoore
.
Report
to Tierra Data, Inc. and
Naval Air Station Lemoore.
Small
wood,
K. S. and
M. L. Morrison. 2013
. Sa
n Joaquin kangaroo rat (
Dipodomys n. nitr
a
toides
)
conservat
ion research
in Resource Management Area 5,
Le
moore Naval Air Stat
i
on:
2012
Progress Report (In
clusive of work during 2000
-
2012
). Naval Facilities Enginee
ring Command,
So
uthwest, Desert Integrated
Products
Team, San Dieg
o, California.
S
mallwo
o
d, K. S.
2012.
Fatality
rate estimates
at the Vantage
Wind Energy Project,
yea
r o
ne
.
R
eport to Ventus E
nvironm
ental, Portland, Oregon.
Smal
lwood, K. S. and L.
Neher. 2012
.
S
iting
wind turbines to min
imize raptor collisions
at North
Sky Rive
r
.
R
ep
o
rt to Next
Era
Energy Resources, LLC
.
134
S
mallwood CV
22 Smallwood, K. S.
2011.
Monitoring
F
oss
orial Mammals i
n Vasco Cav
es Regional Preserve,
Califor
nia: Report of Progress for t
h
e Period 2006
-
20 11
.
R
eport to
East Bay Re
gional Park
District
.
Smallwood, K. S.
and M.
L. Morriso
n. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (
Dipodomys
n. nitratoides
)
Con
s
erv
ation Research in Resource
Management Area 5,
Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011
Progre
ss Report (In
clu
sive of work during 2000
-
2 011
). Naval Facilities E
ngineering Comman
d
,
Sout
h
west, Dese
rt Integrated Products
Team, San Diego
, Califo
rnia.
Smallwood, K
.
S.
2011. Draft
study desig
n for testing collision risk
of FloDesign Wind Turbine in
P
atterson Pass, S
anta Clara, and Former AES
Seawest Wind Projects i
n t
he Altamont Pa
s
s Wind
Resource A
rea (APWRA)
.
R
eport to FloDesig
n, Inc.
Sma
llwood, K. S. 2011.
Co
mments on Marbled Murrelet
collision model
for the Radar Ridge
Wind Resource Area.
R
eport to EcoStat
, Inc., and ultimately to
US Fi
sh and Wildlife Ser
vice.
Smallwoo
d
, K. S
.
2011. A
vian
fatality rates
at Buena Vista Wind Energy
Project, 2008
-
2011.
R
e
port to
Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting
repowered wi
nd turbines to m
inimize raptor
collisions
at Tres Vaqueros, Contra
Costa County, Ca
l
iforni
a
.
R
eport
to
Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and M.
L. Morrison. 2011.
San
Joaquin kangaroo rat (
Dip
odomys n. nitratoides
)
Conservation Research in Resource Ma
nagement Area 5,
Lemoore Naval Air Station
: 2010
Progress Report
(Inclusive of wor
k
durin
g
2000
-
2010
). Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
South
west, Desert Integra
t
ed
Products Tea
m, San Diego,
California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Developm
ent and
avian is
sues
in the Altamont Pass,
California.
R
eport to
Black & Veatch.
Small
w
ood, K. S.
and L. Neher. 2010.
Siting
repowered wind t
urbines to minimize
r
apt
or
collisions
at the Tres
Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California.
Re
port to the
East
Bay Regional Park Distri
c
t, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K.
S
. and
L
. Neher.
2010.
Siting
repowered wind turbines to minim
ize raptor
collision
s
at
Vasco Winds.
R
eport to
N
extEra Energy Resources, LLC
, Livermore, California.
Smal
lwood, K. S. 20
10. Baseline
avian and ba
t fatality rates
at the
Tres Vaqueros Win
d
Proje
c
t,
Contra
Costa County, California. Report to the East
Bay Regional Park Di
s
tri
ct, Oakland,
California.
Smallwood
, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010
. San Joaquin
kangaroo rat (
Di
podomys n. nitratoides
)
Co
nservation Research in R
esource Managemen
t
Area
5 , Lemoore
Naval Air Station: 2009
Progress Report (Incl
usive of work during
200
0 -
2009). Naval Facilities
Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integrated Products
Team, San Diego,
California. 86 pp.
Small
wood, K. S. 2009. Mamm
al surveys at nav
a
l outl
y
ing landin
g field Imperial Beach,
California, August 200
9. Report to Tierra
Dat
a, Inc. 5 pp
135
S
mallwood CV
23 Smallwood,
K. S. 2009.
Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Propos
ed Site of Amarg
osa
Solar Power Project, S
pring 2009. Report to T
ierra Data, Inc.
13 pp
Smallwood,
K. S. 2009.
Avian Fatality Rates at Buena V
ista Wind Energy Pro
j
ect
, 2008
-
2009.
Report to me
mbers of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committ ee on the Buena
Vista Wind Energy Project.
8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S
. 2009. Repower
i
ng the
Altamont P
ass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles
Energ
y Generation While S
u
bst
antially Reducing Bird Fat
alities
. Report prepared on behalf of
Californians for Ren
ewable Energy.
2 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. an
d M. L. Morrison. 2009.
Surveys to Dete
c
t Salt
Marsh Harv
est Mouse and
California Black Rail at Install
ation Restoration Si
t
e 3
0, Military Ocean Terminal
Concord,
California: March
-
April 2009. Report to Insight
Environmental,
Engineering, and
Construct
ion, Inc., Sacramento, C
alifornia. 6 pp.
Small
w
ood, K. S.
2008.
Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Ho
rn Wind Energy Proje
c
t,
Klickitat
County, Washingt
on. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 p p.
Smallwood, K
. S. 2009. Monitoring Fo
ssorial Mammals in Vasco
Caves Regional P
r
eserve
,
Californi
a: report of progress for the period 2006
-
200
8. Unpublished repo
r
t t
o East Bay
Regional Park D
istrict. 5 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008
. San Joaquin k
angaroo rat (
Dipodomys n.
nitratoides
)
Conservatio
n Research in Res
o
urce M
a
nagement A
rea 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008
Progre
ss Report (Inclusive
of
work during 2000
-
2008). Na
val Facilities Engineering Command,
Southwest, Desert Integ
rated Products T
eam, San Diego, California
. 84 pp.
Smallwood, K.
S. and M. L. Morr
i
son.
2 008.
Habi
tat Assessment for California Red
-
Legged Frog
at
Naval Weapons Sta
t
ion
, Seal Beach, Detachment C
oncord, California.
Naval Facilities
Engineering Command,
Southwest, Deser
t Integrated Products Team
, San Diego, California.
48 pp.
Smallwo
o
d, K.
S
. and B. N
akamoto
.
2008.
Impact of 2005 and 2006 West N
ile Virus on Yellow
-
b
ill
ed Magpie and American Cro
w in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22
pp.
Smallwood,
K. S. and M. L.
Morrison. 2008. Former
Naval Security Group Ac
tivity (NSGA),
Ska
g
gs Isl
a
nd, Waste
and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site
#2), San Pablo Bay,
Son
oma County, California: Re
-
Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter
Agreem
ent
–
N68711
-
04L
T
-
A0045. Naval Facilities
Engineering Command, S
outhwest, Desert
I
n
tegrat
e
d Products
Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.
Smallwoo
d, K. S. and M. L. M
o
rri
son. 2008.
Burrowing owl
s at Dixon N
aval Radio
Transmitter
Facility. Report to U.S
. Navy. Naval F
acilities Engineering Comm
and, Southwest, Desert
Integrated Product
s
Team,
San Diego,
California. 28 pp.
Smallwood
, K. S. and M.
L
. Morrison. 2008.
S
an
Joaquin kangaroo rat (
Dipo
domys n. nitratoides
)
136
S
mallwood CV
24 Conservation Research in Resource Man
agement Area 5,
Lemoore Naval Air Station:
2007
Progress Report
(Inclusive of work
during
2001
-
2007)
.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
Southw
est, Desert Integrat
e
d P
roducts Team, San Diego, C
alifornia
. 69 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison
. 20
07. A Monitorin
g Effort to Detect the Pre
sence of the
Federally
Listed Species Cal
i
fornia
Clapper Ra
il and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland
H
abitat Assessment at
the
Naval Weapons Station, Se
al Beach, Detachment Concord,
California. Installation Res
toration (IR) Si
te 30, Final Report to U.S
. Navy, Letter Agreemen
t
–
N68711
-
05LT
-
A0
0 01. U
.
S. Navy In
tegrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facil
ities
Engineering Co
m
man
d, San Diego, California.
8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison
. 2007. San Joa
quin kangaroo ra
t (
Dipodomys n. nitratoide
s
)
Conservation Researc
h in Resource Mana
g
ement
A
rea 5, Lem
oore Naval Air Station: 200
6 Progress Report
(Inclusive of work d
u
rin
g 2001
-
2006). U.S. Navy In
tegrated Product Team
(IPT), West, Naval Facilit
ies Enginee
ring Command, So
uthw
est, Daly City, Califo
rnia. 165 pp.
Smallwoo
d, K. S. and C.
Th
e
lander
.
2006. R
esponse to third review of Smallwood and Thela
nder
(2004). Report
to
California Institute for E
nergy and Environment, University of California,
Oakland, C
A. 139 pp.
Sma
llwood, K. S
. 2006. Biol
ogical effects of repow
ering a portion of
the Al
t
amont Pass
Wind
Resource Area, California: The Diablo W
inds Energy Project.
Re
port to Altamont Working
G
roup. Available from Shawn Smallwood,
[email protected]
. 34 pp.
Smallwood, K. S
. 2006.
Impact of 2005 W
e
st Nil
e
Virus on
yellow
-
billed magpie and american
crow
in the
Sacramento Valley, C
a
lif
ornia. Report to Sacramen
to
-
Yolo Mosquito and Vector
Control District,
Elk Grove, CA
. 38 pp.
Small
wood, K. S. and M. L. Morr
ison
. 2006. San Joaqu
in kangaroo rat (
D
i
podomy
s
n. nitrat
oides
)
Conservation Research in Resource Manag
ement Area 5, Lemoor
e
Na
val Air Station: 2005
Pro
gress Report
(Inclusive of work during 2001
-
2005)
. U.S. Nav
y Integrated Pro
duct Team
(IPT), West, Nav
al Facilities Engineeri
ng Command, South
W
est, D
a
ly City, C
alifornia
. 160
pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L.
Morrison
. 2006. A
mon
itoring effort to detect t
he presence of the
federally listed species California tige
r salamander and
California red
-
legged fro
g at the Naval
Weapons
Station, Seal Beac
h
, Deta
c
hment Conc
ord, California.
Letter agreements
N68711
-
04L
T
-
A0042 and N68711
-
0 4
LT
-
A0044, U.S. Navy Integrate
d Product Team (IPT), West,
Naval Facilities Engineering Co
mmand, South Wes
t, Daly City, California
.
6 0 pp.
Smallwood, K. S
. and M. L. Morris
o
n
. 20
0 6.
A moni
toring effort to detect the presence of the
fe
derally listed speci
e
s C
alifornia Clapper Rail and
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland
habitat assessment a
t the Naval Weap
ons Station, Seal Beach, D
etachment Concord, Cali
fornia.
Sampling
f
or rai
l
s, Spring
2006,
Installation Restoration (IR
) Site 1. L
etter Agreement
–
N6
8 711
-
05lt
-
A0001, U.S. Navy Int
egrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities
Engineer
ing Command, Sou
th West, Daly City, Califo
rnia.
9 pp.
Morrison
,
M. L. and K. S.
Sm
a
llwood
.
2006. F
inal Report: Station
-
wide Wildlife Survey, Nav
al
Air Station, Lemo
o
re.
Department of the Navy I
ntegrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval
137
S
mallwood CV
25 Facilities Enginee
ring Command Sou
thwest, 2001 Junipero Serr
a Blvd., Suite 600, Dal
y City,
CA 94014
-
1 9
76. 2
0 pp.
Smal
lwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison
. 2006. Forme
r Naval Security Gro
u
p A
ctivity (NSGA),
Skaggs Isl
and, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo
Bay, Sonoma Cou
nty,
California: Re
-
veget
ation Monitoring. Depar
tment of the Navy
I
ntegra
t
ed Product
Team (IPT)
West, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Southwest,
2 001
Junipero Serra Blvd., Sui
te 600,
Daly City, CA 94014
-
1976. 8 pp.
Dorin, Melinda, L
inda Spiegel and
K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005
. Response to public c
omments on
the sta
f
f repo
r
t entitled
Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions
and Electrocutions
(
CEC
-
700
-
2005
-
015) (Avian Whit
e Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environm
ental
Perfo
rmance Report an
d th
e
2005 Integrated Ener
gy Policy Report. Cali
fornia Energy
Comm
i
ssion,
Sacramento
. 205 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimatin
g combined effects o
f
se
lective turbine removal an
d winter
-
time
shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublis
hed CEC staff re
port, June 23. 1 p.
Eric
kson
, W.
and
S.
Smallwo
od. 2005. Avian
a
nd Bat
Monitoring
Plan for the Buena Vista Wind
Energy Project
Contra Costa County,
Cal
ifornia.
Unpubl. report t
o Contra Costa County,
Antioch, California. 22 pp.
Lamphi
er
-
Gregory, West
Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jo
nes & Stokes Associates
, Illingworth &
Ro
d
kin In
c
. and Envi
ronmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact
Report for the Buen
a
Vi
sta Wind Energy Project, L
P# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development De
partment, Martin
ez, California.
Morrison,
M. L. and K. S. Smallw
ood. 2005. A mon
i
toring
effort to
detect the presence of the
federally listed sp
ecies California cla
p
per
rail and salt marsh harve
st mouse, and wetland habitat
assessment at the Naval Weapo
ns Station, Seal
Beach, Detachment Concord
, California.
Targeted
Sampling for Salt
M
arsh H
a
rvest Mous
e, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Sit
e
30. Letter Agreem
e
nt
–
N68711
-
05lt
-
A0001,
U.S.
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities
Engineering Comman
d Southwest, Dal
y City, California. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K
. S. Smallwood. 2
0 05. A
monitoring
effort to detect the presence of the
federall
y listed species Cal
i
for
nia clapper rail and salt
marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat
assessment at the
Naval Weapons St
ation, Seal Beach, Detachm
ent Concord, California
. Letter
Agreement
–
N687
1 1
-
05lt
-
A00
01, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilit
ies Engineering
Comm
a
nd
Southwest, Daly City, Cali
fornia. 5 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005.
Skaggs Island
waste and contaminated soi
l removal
p
rojects, San
Pablo Bay, Sonoma
County
,
Californi
a
. Report to the U.S. Department of the
Navy,
Naval Facilities En
g
ine
ering Command Southwest, D
aly City, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Mo
rrison
. 2004.
2004 Progress Report: San
Joaquin kangaroo rat
(
Dipodomys nitratoi
d
es
) Co
n
servation
Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoo
re
Naval Air Station
.
Pr
ogress report to U.S. Depa
rtment of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134
pp.
138
S
mallwood CV
26 Smallwo
od, K. S. and L.
Spiegel. 2005
a
. Assessm
ent
to support an adapt
ive management plan
for
the
APWRA.
Unpublished CEC staff report
, January 19
. 19
pp.
Smallwood, K. S
.
an
d L. Spiegel. 2005b. Par
tial
re
-
assessment of an adaptive management plan
for the
A
PWRA. Unpublish
ed CEC staff report, March
25. 48 pp.
Smallwood
, K. S. and L. Spi
e
gel.
2 005c. Com
bining biology
-
based and policy
-
based tiers of
priority for determ
i
nin
g wind turbine relocation/
shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the
APWRA. Unpublishe
d CEC staff repo
rt, June 1. 9 pp.
Smallw
ood, K. S. 2004. Alte
rnative plan to im
p
lement
mitigation
measures in APWRA.
Unpublished CEC staff rep
ort, January 19. 8
p
p.
Small
wood, K. S., and L.
Neher. 200
5 . Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimi
zing
avian morta
lity without significant l
oss of power generation
.
California Ener
g
y Comm
i
ssion
,
PIE
R Energy
-
Related Environmental Research.
CEC
-
5 00
-
2005
-
005.
21 pp
.
[
R
eprinted
(in
Japanese) in
Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Ed itors, Wildlife
and
Wind Turbine Report 5.
Wild Bird Society of
Japan, Tokyo.]
Mo
r
rison,
M. L., and
K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey
at RMA4, NAS Lemoore
.
R
eport to U.S. Navy.
4 pp
.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitorin g effort to dete
ct the presence of the
fed
erally listed species C
alifornia clapper
r
ails a
n
d wetland
habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the
Naval Weap
ons Station, Seal Be
a
ch,
Detachment Concord, Calif
ornia. Letter Agreement
N68711
-
04LT
-
A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp.
of photo plates.
Smallwood, K. S. and M.
L. Morrison
. 2003. 20
03 Progress Report
:
San
J
oaquin kan
garoo rat
(
Dipodomys nitratoides
) Conservation
Research at Resourc
e
s M
anagement Area 5, Lemoore
Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of th e Navy, Lemoore,
California. 56 pp.
+ 58
figures.
Smallwood, K
. S. 2003. Compa
r
ison o
f
Biologica
l Impacts of the No Project and Partial
Underg
round Alternatives p
r
ese
nted in the Final Environm
ental Impact Report for the Jefferson
-
Martin 230 kV Transmi
ssion Line. Rep
ort to California Public U
tilities Commission. 2
0 pp.
Morrison, M
.
L., a
n
d K. S. Sm
allwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4,
NAS Lemoore.
Report
to
U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 phot
os + 1 map.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Env
ironmental Revie
w Documents Prepared for t
he
Tesla Power Project.
Report to the Ca
l
iforni
a
Energy Co
mmission on behalf of Californians for
Renewab
le Energy. 32 pp.
S
mal
lwood, K. S., and M. L. Mo
rrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo
rat
(
Dipodomys
nitratoides
) Conservation
Research at Resources M
anagement Area 5,
L
emoore
Naval Air
Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of
the Navy, Lemoore,
C
ali
fornia. 45 pp.
+ 36 figur
es.
139
S
mallwood CV
27 Smallwood, K. S.,
Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. The
lander 2002.
S
tudy plan to test the
effe
ctiveness of aerial mar
kers at reducing a
v
ian mo
r
tality due
to collisions with transmission
lines: A rep
ort to Pacific Gas &
Ele
ctric Company. 10 pp.
Sm
allwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Revi ew Documents Pre
pared for the
East Altamon
t Energy Center. Repor
t to the Californi
a
Energ
y
Commissio
n on behalf of
Californians for Renewable Ener
gy. 26 pp.
Theland
e
r,
Carl G.,
K. Shawn Smallwoo
d, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution
Pole
s for Threat of
Raptor Electrocution and P
riority Retrofit: Devel
oping a Predictive
Model.
Report to
Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., M.
Rob
ison, and C. Thelander. 2
002. Draft Natural Environment Study,
Prunedale Highway 10
1 Project. Cali
fornia Department of Trans
portation, San Luis Obi
spo,
California.
1 20 pp.
Smallwood
, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integr
ity and restoration
p
ote
ntial of
Beeman/Pelican Fa
rm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.
Smallwoo
d, K.
S.
, and M. L. Morris
on. 2002. Fresno kang
aroo rat (
Dipodomy
s
nitra
t
oides
)
Con
servation Research at Resources Management Are
a 5, Lemoore Naval A
i
r S
tation
. Progress
r
eport
to
U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California.
29 pp.
+
19 figures.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Ro
cky Flats visit, April
4 th
through 6
th
, 2
0 01. R
e
port to Be
rger &
Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color pl
ates.
Smallwood, K.
S
.
2001. Affidavit of K. Sha
wn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and
Wild
life Service’s r
ejection of Seatuck Enviro
nmental Association’s p
roposal to operate
an
edu
c
ation cent
er on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submi
tted to Seatuck Envi
r
onm
ental
Association in two p
arts, totaling 7 pp.
Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001
. Maranatha Hig
h School CEQA critique. C
omment letter
submitted
to
Tamara & Efren
Compeá
n
, 16 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001.
Comme
n
ts on the
Newhall Ranch November 2000
Administrative Dra
ft EIR. Prepared fo
r
Ve
ntura County Counsel regar
ding the Newhall Ranch
Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.
Magney, D
. and K.
S. Smal
lwood. 2000.
Newhall Ranc
h Notice of Preparation Submittal.
Prepa
red for
Ventura Co
unty Counsel regarding our recommended scope o
f work for the
Newha
l
l R
anch Specific Plan EIR. 1
7 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary
Staff Ass
essment
of the Cont
ra Costa Power
Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to Calif
ornia E
n
ergy Commi
ssion on November 30 on behalf of
Californians
for Renewable Energ
y
(C
aRE). 4 pp.
Smallwood, K
. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Sta
ff Asse
ssment
140
S
mallwood CV
28 of th
e MEC. Submitt
ed to California Energy Commission on Oct
ober 29
on behalf
of
Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE).
8 pp.
Smallwood, K.
S.
2000. Comments on the Bio
logical Resources Mitigation Implementation and
Monitoring
Plan (BRM
IMP).
Submitted to
California En
ergy Commission on October 29 on
behalf o
f Calif
o
rnians for
Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp.
Smallwood, K
. S. 2000. Comments
on
the Preliminary Staff Asse
ssment of the Metcalf Energy
Center. Submitted to Californi
a Energy
Commiss
ion on behal
f of Californi
ans for Renewable
Energy (CaRE). 11 pp.
Smallw
o
od, K. S.
2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance su
rveys near the TRW p
l
ant
south of
Phoenix, Arizona
, March 27
-
29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchel
l, Attorn
eys at
Law, Phoenix
, AZ. 6 pp.
M
orrison, M.
L., K.
S.
Smallwood, and M. Ro
bison.
2001. Dra
ft Natural Environment Study for
Highway 46 co
mpliance with CEQA/N
E
PA.
Report to the California
Department of
Transportation. 75 pp.
Morrison, M.L., and
K.
S.
Sm
allwood.
1999. NTI
plan evaluati
on and comments. Exhibit C in
W.D. Carrie
r, M.L.
Morrison,
K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recomme
ndations for
NBHCP l
a
nd
acquisition and enhancemen
t strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Sma
llwood,
K. S.
19 99.
Estimat
ion of impacts
due to dredging of a shipping channel th
rough
H
u
mboldt Bay
, California. Court Declaration prepared on b
ehalf of EPIC.
Smal
l
woo
d, K. S. 1998. 1998 Calif
ornia
mountain lion track count
. Report to the Defenders o
f
Wildli
fe, Wash
ington, D.C.
5 pages.
Sm
allwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a v
isit to
a paint sl
udge dump site near Ridgewood, New
Jersey, Feb
ruary 26th, 1998. U
n
pub
lished report to Consultin
g in the Public Interest.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science
missing
in the “
no surprises
” policy. Com
missioned by National
Endangered Species
Network
and Spirit
of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California.
S
mallwood, K.S. and M
.
L.
Morrison. 1997. Alternat
e mitigation strategy for incidental take of
giant garter s
nake and
Swainso
n’s hawk as
part of the Na
tomas Basin Habitat Conservation
Plan. P
ages 6
-
9 and
iii
i
llustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood a
nd M.L. Morrison,
Na
t
oma
s Basin Habitat Conservati
on Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland
mitigatio
n. Nort
hern Ter
ritories, In
c., Sacramento
.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of
the BIO
P
ORT model'
s parameter values for pocket gopher
burrowing
characteristics. R
e
por
t to Berger & Montague, P.
C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C.,
Philadelphia. (peer reviewed).
Smallwoo
d, K.S.
1997. Asse
ssment of plut
onium releases from Hanford buried waste
sites.
R
eport
Numb
er 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Cl
inton Street, Lamber
t
vil
le, New Jersey,
08530.
141
S
mallwood CV
29 Sm
allwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fat e of Haz
ardous M
aterials tha
t were
Release
d at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Rep
ort to
B
erger & Mo
ntague, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S.
1996. Second assess
m
ent
of the BIOPORT model's pa
rameter values for pocket
gopher burrowing characteristics
and othe
r releva
nt wildlife
observations.
Report to Berger &
Montague, P.C. and Ro
y S. Ha
b
er, P.C.,
Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy.
1996. Wildlife and
their management under
the Ma
rtell SYP.
Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel,
CA. 30
pp.
EI
P Associates
. 1995. Yolo
County Habitat Conservation Plan Biologi
cal Res
o
urces Repo
rt. Yolo
County Planning and Development Depa
rtment, Woodland, Ca
l
ifo
rnia.
Smallwood, K.S. and
S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost
Survey
and
reco
mmendations
for future sur
vey. Program on Workable Energy Regulati
on, Uni
v
ersity
-
wid
e
Energy Research Group, University of Califor
nia.
Smallwood, K.S
.
, S
. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1
992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987
Californi
a Farm C
ost Surv
ey and recom
mendations for
future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric
C
ompany,
San Ramon,
California. 24 pp.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S.
Smallwood. 1987. M
e
tho
ds Manual
–
A statewide mo
untain lion
population index technique. California Departme
nt of Fi
sh and G
ame, Sacrame
nto.
Salmon,
T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Re
port
–
E
valuating
exotic vertebrates as pests to
California agri
culture. California
D
epa
rtment of Food and Agricul
ture, Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (writ
ten unde
r superv
ision of W.E
. Howard, R.E.
Marsh, and
R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environm
ental e
x
posure and
fate of multi
-
kill strychnine gopher baits.
F
inal Report to USDA
F
ore
st Service
–
NAPIAP, Cooper
ative Agreement PSW
-
89 -
0010CA.
Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallw
ood, and
R. Gros
s. 1985. M
ountain lion t
rack count, Marin County,
1985.
R
eport o
n file
a
t Wildlife
Extension, University of California, Davis.
Comments on Environm
e
nta
l Documents
(Year; pages)
I
was
retai
ned or commissioned to comment on environmental
plannin
g an
d review
documen
ts,
including:
Replies on
UCSF
Comprehensive Parna
ssus Heights Plan
EIR (202
1 ;
13 );
14 Charles Hill Circle Des
ign Review (2021; 11);
SDG Comm
erce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26);
Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project
DS
EIR (2021;
98);
Clawiter Road Industrial Project
IS/MND, Hayward (2021;
18);
Garnet
Energy Center Stipulations, New York
(2020);
Heritage
Wind Energy P
ro
ject, New York (2020: 71);
Ameresco Keller C
anyon RNG
Project
IS/MND, Martinez (2020;
11);
142
S
mallwood CV
30
Cambria Hote
l Project
Staff Report,
Dublin
(2020; 19);
Central Pointe Mixed
-
Use
Staff Re
port, Santa Ana (2020; 20);
Oak Valley Town Center
EIR
Addendu
m
, Calimesa (2020; 23);
Coachillin Specific Plan
M
ND Am
endm
ent
, Desert Hot Sp
rings (2020; 26);
Stockton Avenue Hotel a
nd Condominiums Project
Tier
ing to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19);
Cityline Sub
-
block 3 South
Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22);
Station East R
e
sidential/Mixed Use
EIR, Union City (2020;
21);
Multi
-
Sport
Complex
&
Southeast
Indust
rial Annexation
Suppl. EIR, Elk
Grove (2020;
24);
Sun Lakes Village
North
EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside Count
y (2020;
27);
2 nd
comments on
12 9
6 Lawrence Station Roa
d
, Sunnyvale
(2020;
4 );
12 9
6 Lawrence Station Road
,
Sunnyva
le
(2020; 16);
Mesa Wind Project
EA,
Desert Hot Springs
(20
20;
31);
11th Street Development Project
IS/MND
, City
of Upland
(
2020; 17
);
Vista Mar Project
IS/MND
, Pacifica (2020; 17);
Emerson Cree
k W
ind Project
Applicat
ion
, Ohio (2020; 64);
Replies on
Wi
ster
Solar
Energy Facility
EIR, Imperial County
(2020;
12 );
Wis
ter
Solar
Energy Facility
EIR, Imperial County
(2020; 28);
Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert
(2020, 35)
not submitted
;
Sakioka Farms
EI
R tiering, Oxnar
d (2020
; 14);
3440 Wilshire
Project
IS/MND,
Los Angeles (2020;
19);
Replies on
2400 Barranca Office De
velopment
Project
EIR, Irvine (2020;
8 );
2400 Barranca Office Development
Project
EIR, Irvine (2020;
25);
Replies on
Heber 2 Geothermal Re
power Project
IS/MND, El Centro (2020;
4 );
2 nd
comme
nts
on
Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project
IS/MND, El Centro (2020;
8 );
Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project
IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3
);
Lots 4
-
12 Oddstad Way Project
IS/MND, Pacifica (2020;
16);
Declaratio
n on
DDG Visalia Warehouse
project
(
202
0 ; 5
);
Terrac
es
of L
afayette
EIR Addendu
m (2020;
24 );
AMG Industrial Annex
IS/M
ND, Los Ban
os (2020; 15
);
Replies to
responses on
Casmalia and Linden Warehouse
(
2020; 15
)
;
Clover Project
MND, Pet
aluma (2020; 27);
Ruby
Street
Apartments Project
E
nv. Checklis
t, Hayward (2
020; 20
);
Re
plies to responses on
3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard
Staff
Report (2020; 5);
3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard
Staff Report (2020;
9 );
St
eeno
Warehouse
IS/
MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);
UCSF
Comprehensive Parna
ssus Heights Plan
EIR (2020; 24);
North
Pointe Busin
ess Cen
ter
M
ND, Fr
es
no (2020; 14
);
Casmalia and Linden Warehouse
I
S
, Fontana
(2020;
15 );
Rubidoux Commerce Center Project
IS/MND
, Jurupa Valley (
2020; 27
);
Haun
and Holland Mixed Use Center
MND,
Men
ifee (
2020; 23
);
First
Industrial Logistics C
enter II
, Mor
eno Val
ley
I
S/MND (2020; 23
);
GLP Store
Warehouse Project
Staff Re
port
(
2020; 15
);
Replies on
Beale WAPA Interconnection Project
E
A & CEQA checklist (2020;
29 )
;
2 nd
comments on
Beale WAPA Interconnection
Project
E
A & CEQA checklist (2020; 3
4 )
;
143
S
mallwood CV
31
Beale WAPA I
ntercon
nection Project
E
A & CEQA checklist (2020; 30)
;
Levine
-
Fric
ke Softball Field Improvement
Addendum
, UC Berkeley (2020; 16);
Greenlaw Partners Warehouse
and Distribution Cente
r
Staff Report
, Palmdale
(
2020; 14
)
;
Humboldt
Wind
Energy Project
DEIR (2019
;
25);
Sand
Hill Supplemental EIR
,
Alt
amon
t Pass (2019; 17);
1700
Dell Avenue Office Project
, Campbell
(2019, 28)
;
118
0 Main Street Office
Project
MND,
Redwood C
ity
(
2019; 19:
Summit Ridge Wind Farm
Reque
st for Amendment 4
, Oregon (2019; 46);
Shafter
Warehouse
St
aff
Report (2019; 4);
Pa
rk
&
Broadway
Design Review, S
an Di
ego (2019;
19 );
Pinnacle Pacific Heights
Design Review, San Diego
(2019;
19 );
Pinnacle Park & C
Design Review, San Diego (2019;
19 );
Prese
rve at Torrey Highland
s
EIR, San D
ieg
o
(2019; 24);
Santana
West Project
EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18);
The Ra
nch a
t Eastvale
EIR
Addendum, Riverside Co
unty (2020; 19
);
Hageman
Warehous
e
IS/M
ND, Bakersfield
(
20 19
; 13
);
Oakley Logistics Center
E
IR, Antio
ch (2019;
22 );
27 South First Street
IS, San Jose (2019; 23
);
2 nd
replies on
Times Mirror Square Project
EIR, Los
Ange
les (20
20 ; 1
1 );
Replies
o
n
Times Mirror Square Project
EIR, Los Angeles (20
20 ; 1
3 );
Times Mirror Square Project
EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18
);
East Monte Vista
&
Aviator
General Plan Amend
EI
R Addend
um
, Vacaville
(20
19; 22
);
Hillcrest LRDP
EIR, La J
olla
(201
9; 36);
55 5
Portola Road
CUP,
Portola Valley
(2019; 11)
;
Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone
SEIR, Pleas
anton (2019; 27);
1750 Broadwa
y
Project
CEQA Ex
em
ption, Oakland (2019; 19)
;
Mor Furniture
Projec
t
MND
, Murietta Hot Springs
(20
19; 27
);
Harbor
View
Project
EIR, Redwood City (2019; 2
6 );
Visalia Logistics Center
(2019; 13
);
Cordelia
Industrial Buildi
ngs
MND
(
2019
; 14
);
Scheu
Distributio
n Center
IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019;
13);
Mills Park Cen
ter
Staff Report,
San Bruno (2019; 22
);
Site visit to
Deser
t Highway Farms
IS/MND, Imperial County
(
2019;
9 )
;
Desert Highway Farms
IS/MND, Imperial County
(
2019;
1 2
)
;
ExxonMobil Interim Trucking fo
r Santa
Ynez Unit
Resta
rt
SEIR, Santa B
arbara (2019; 9);
Ol
ympic Holdings Inland Center Warehous
e Project
MND, Ra
ncho
Cucamonga (2019;
14 );
Replies to responses on
Lawrence Eq
ui
pment Industrial
Warehous
e
, Banning (2019;
19 );
PARS Global Storage
MND,
Mur
iet
ta (2019; 13
);
Slover
Warehouse
EIR Addendum,
Fontana (2019
;
16);
Seefried Warehouse Project
IS/
MND, Lath
rop (201
9;
19 )
World Logistics Center
Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019;
19 );
Merced Landfill
Gas
-
To
-
Energy Project
IS/MND
(2019; 12);
West Village Expan
sion
FE
IR, UC Davis (2019;
11);
Site visit,
Doheny
Ocean De
salination
EIR,
Dana Point
(201
9 ; 1
1 );
144
S
mallwood CV
32
Re
plies to resp
onses
on
Avalo
n West Valley
Expansion
EIR, San Jose (2019;
10 );
Avalon West Valley
Expansion
EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);
Sunroad
–
Otay 50
EIR Ad
den
dum, San Diego (2019; 26);
Del Rey Pointe Res
idential Pr
oj
ect
IS/MND,
Los Angeles (2019;
34 );
1 AMD
Redevelopm
ent
E
IR,
Sunny
vale (2019; 22);
Lawrence Equipment Industri
al
Warehouse
IS
/MND, Ba
nning (2019; 14
);
SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse
IS, American Cany
on (2019; 21);
PAMA Business Center
IS/MND, More
no Valley
(
2019;
2 3
)
;
Cupertino Village Hotel
IS (2019; 2
4 );
Lak
e
Hous
e
IS/ND
, Lodi
(2019; 33);
Campo
Wind Project
DEIS
, San Diego County
(DEIS, (2019;
14);
Stirl
ing
Warehouse MND
site visit
, Victorville (201
9 ;
7 );
Green Valley II
Mixed
-
Use Project
EIR, Fairfield (20
19;
36 );
We Be Jammin rezone
MND, Fre
sno (2019; 14);
G
ray W
hale Cove Pedestrian
Crossing
IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);
Visalia Logistics Center
& DDG 697V
Staff Report (2019;
9);
M
ather South Communit
y
Masterplan Project
EIR (2019;
35 );
Del Hombre Apartment
s
EIR,
Walnut Creek
(2019; 23);
Otay Ranch Planning Area
12 E
IR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);
The Retreat at
Sacramento
IS/MND (2019;
26);
Site visit
to
Sunroad
–
Centrum 6
EIR Addendum,
San Dieg
o (201
9 ;
9 );
Sunroad
–
Centrum 6
EIR Addendum,
San Diego (2
018; 22);
North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buil
dings
EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018;
30);
South Lake Solar
IS, Fresno County (2018;
18);
Galloo
Island Wind P
roject Application, New York (not
s
ubmitted
)
(2018; 44);
Doheny
Ocean Desalination
EIR,
Dana P
oint
(2018; 15);
Stirling
Warehous
e MND
, Victorville (
201
8 ;
18 );
LDK Warehouse MND
,
Vacaville
(201
8; 30
);
Gatew
ay Crossings FEIR
, Santa Clara (2018;
23);
South Hayward Development
IS/MND (2018;
9)
;
CBU Speci
fic Plan Amendment
, Riverside (2018; 27);
2 nd
r
e
plies
to responses on
Dove Hill
Ro
ad Assisted Living P
rojec
t
MND (2018;
11 );
Replies to responses on
Dove Hill
R
oad Assisted Living Project
MND (2018;
7 );
Dove Hill
Road Assisted Living Project
MND
(2018; 12)
;
Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course
EIR, Brent
wood (
2018; 2
1 );
Pyramid Asphalt
B
LM
Finding of No Sig
nific
anc
e
, Imperial County
(201
8 ;
22 )
;
Amáre
Apartments IS/MND
, Martinez (2018;
15);
Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis
MND, Santa Rosa
(201
8; 21);
2 n
d
comments on
Zeiss Innovation Center
IS/MND, Dublin (2018:
1 2);
Zeiss Innovation Center
IS/MND, Dublin (2018:
32 );
Ci
ty of Hope Campus Plan
EIR, Duarte (2018;
21);
Palo Verde Center
IS/MND
, Blythe
(2018; 14);
Logisticenter at Vacaville
MND
(2018; 24
);
IKE
A Retail Center
SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);
145
S
mallwood CV
33
Merge 56 EIR
, San
Diego (2018; 15);
Natomas
Crossroads Quad B Office Pro
ject
P18
-
014
EIR, Sacramento (2018;
12);
2900 Harbor Bay Parkway
Staff Report
,
Alameda (20
18;
3 0);
At Dublin
EIR, Dublin (20
18; 2
5 );
Fre
sno Ind
ustrial Rezone
Amendment Application No. 3807
IS
(2018;
10)
;
Nova Business Park
IS/MND
, Napa (2018; 18
);
Updated
Colli
sion Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities
, USFWS (2018
;
57 );
750 Marlborough A
venue Wareho
use
MND, Riverside (20
18; 14
);
Repl
ies to responses on
San Bernardino Logistics Center
IS (201
8; 1
2 );
San
Bernardino Logi
stics Center
IS (2018; 19);
CUP2
017
-
16 , Costco
IS/MND, Clovis (2018;
11);
Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan
EIR
,
Desert Hot
Springs
(
2018; 18
)
;
Ventura Hilton
IS/MND (20
18; 30);
North of California Street Master Plan Project
IS
,
Mountain View (2018:
11);
Tamarind
Warehouse
MND, Fon
tana
(2018;
16);
Lathrop G
ateway Business Park
EIR Adde
ndum
(2018; 2
3 );
Centerp
o
int
e
Commerce Center
IS, More
no Valley (2019
; 1
8 );
Amazon Wareh
ouse
Notice of Exemption
, Bakersfield (
2018; 13
);
CenterPoi
nt Building 3 projec
t Staff Re
port, Manteca (20
18; 2
3 )
;
Ces
sna & Aviator Warehou
se
IS/MND, Vacav
ille (
201
8 ;
2 4
);
Napa Airp
ort Corporat
e Center
EIR
, American Canyon
(
2018, 15
);
80 0 Opal Warehouse
In
itial Study
, Mentone, San
Bernard
i
no C
ounty (2018; 18
);
269
5 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project
IS
, Hayward (2018;
22);
Trinity Cannabis Cult
ivation and Manufacturing Facility
DEIR
,
Calexico
(201
8; 15);
Shoe
Palace Expansion
IS/
MND
, M
o
rgan
Hill (20
18; 21);
N
ewark Warehouse at
Morton Salt Plant
Staff Report
(2018; 15
);
Northlake Specific Plan
F
EIR
“Peer Review”
, Los Ang
eles
County (2018;
9);
Replies to responses on
Northlake Specific Plan
S
EIR
,
Los Angeles County (201
8 ;
13 );
N
orthlake Specif
ic Plan
S
EIR
,
Los A
ngeles County (2017; 27);
Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR
,
ea
st Yol
o County (2017; 48);
Ferrante Apartments
IS/MND
, Los A
nge
le
s (2017; 14);
The Vill
ag
es of Lakeview
EIR
,
Riverside
(2017; 28
);
D
ata N
eeded f
or A
ssessing
Trail Management Impacts on
Northern Spotted O
wl
, Marin
Count
y
(2017; 5);
Notes o
n Prop
o
s
ed Study O
ptions
for Tr
ail Impacts on Northern Spotted O
wl
(2017; 4
);
Pyram
id Asphalt
IS, Imperial County
(Decla
ration)
(201
7 ;
5 )
;
San
Gor
gonio Crossings EIR
, Riverside County
(2017;
22 );
Replie
s to
responses on
J
upiter Project IS and MND
, Apple Valley
(
2017; 12
);
Propose
d World Logist
ics Center Mitigation Measures
, Moreno V
alley
(2017
, 2
019;
12 );
MacA
rthur Transit Village
Project Modified 2
016 CEQA Analysis
(2017
; 12
)
;
PG&E
Company Bay Area Oper
ations and Maintena
nce
HCP (
2017; 45
);
Central
SoMa Plan DEIR
(2017; 14
);
S
ugg
ested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted
owl
,
Ma
rin County (2016; 5);
Colony Commerce
Center Specific Plan
DEI
R
, Ontario
(2016; 16
);
146
S
mallwood CV
34
Fairway T
rails Impr
o
vements MND
, Marin Coun
ty
(201
6; 13
);
Review of Avian
-
Solar
Science
Plan
(2
016; 28
);
Repl
ies
on
Pyramid A
sph
alt
IS, Imperial County
(20
1 6; 5
);
Pyram
id Asphalt
IS, Imperial County
(2016; 4
)
;
Agua Mansa Distrib
u
tio
n Warehouse Project Initia
l Study
(2
016; 14
);
San
ta Ani
ta Warehouse
MND
,
R
ancho Cucamonga
(20
16; 12
);
C
apR
ock Distrib
ution Center II
I
DEIR
, Rialto
(2016: 12
)
;
Orange S
how Logisti
cs Cent
e
r
IS/
M
ND
, San Bernardi
no
(2016; 9
);
City of Palmdale O
asis Medical Village
Pro
ject
IS
/
MND (2016; 7
)
;
Comme
nts on proposed rule for incidental ea
gle take
, USFWS
(
20 16, 49
);
Replies on
Gr
a
pevine Specific
and Commun
it
y Plan FEIR
, Kern County
(2016; 25
);
G
rape
vine
Sp
ecific
a
nd Communi
ty Plan DEIR
, Kern Count
y
(2016; 15
);
Clinton County Zon
ing Ordinance for Wi
n
d T
u
rbine siting (2016);
Hall
ma
rk at Shen
andoah Warehouse
Project
Initial Study
, San Ber
nardino
(201
6; 6
);
Tr
i
-
C
ity I
ndustrial Complex Initial
Study
,
San
Berna
rdino
(2016; 5
);
Hidden Canyon Industr
ial Par
k
Plot Plan
16 -
PP
-
02 , Beaumont
(2016; 12
);
Kimball Busi
n
ess Park
DEIR (2016; 10
);
Jup
it
er Pro
ject
IS and MND
,
Apple Valley, San Bernardino County
(2
016;
9 );
Revised
Draft Giant
Garter Snake Recovery Plan
of
2015
(2016, 1
8 );
Palo Verde Mesa Sol
ar P
roject
EIR, Blythe
(20
1 6; 27
);
Reply
on
Fairview Wind Proj
ect
Na
tural Heritage Assessment
, Ontario, Ca
nada
(20
16 ;
14 );
Fairview Wind
Project
Natural Heritage Ass
essment
, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41
);
Reply
on
Amherst
Islan
d Wind
Far
m
Natural Heritage Assessment
, O
ntario (2015,
38 );
A
m
herst Isla
nd
Wind
Farm
Natural Herita
ge Assessment
, Ontario
(2015,
31 );
Sec
ond
Re
ply
on
W
hite Pi
nes Wind
Farm
, On
tario (2015,
6 );
Repl
y
on White
Pines
Win
d
Farm
Natural Heritage Assessment
, Ont
ar
io (2015,
10 );
White Pines Wind
Farm
Natural Heritage Assessment
, Ontar
io (201
5 , 9
);
P
roposed Sect
ion 24 Specific Plan A
gua Caliente
Ban
d of Cahuilla In
d
ian
s
DEIS (2015, 9
);
Repli
es
on
24 Specifi
c Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahui
ll
a Indians
F
EIS
(20
15,
6 );
Willow Spri
ngs
Solar Photovoltaic Project
DEIR
, Ros
amond
(2015
; 28
)
;
Sierra L
akes Commerce Center
Project
DEIR
, Fontan
a
(2015, 9
)
;
Colu
mbia Business
C
ent
er
MND
, Riverside
(2
015; 8
);
West
Valley
Logistics Center Specific Plan
DEIR
, Fontana
(2015, 10
)
;
Wi
l
l
ow Springs
Solar Photovoltaic Project
DEIR (2015, 28
)
;
Alameda Creek
Brid
g
e R
eplacement Project
DE
IR (2
015, 10
);
W
orld Logistic Ce
nter S
pecific Plan
FEIR
, Moreno Va
lley
(2
015, 12
);
Elkhorn Valley
Wind Power Project
Impacts, Oregon (2015;
143);
Bay D
elta
Conservation Plan
EIR/EIS
, Sacramento
(2014, 21
);
Addison
Win
d Energy Project DEIR
, Mojave
(2014, 3
2 );
Replies
on the Addison Wind En
ergy
Project DEIR
, Moja
ve
(2014, 15
);
Addison and Rising Tree Wi
nd Energy
Projec
t FEIR
, M
ojave
(2014, 12
);
Palen Solar
E
lec
tric Generati
ng System
FSA
(CEC)
,
Blythe
(
2014, 2
0 );
Rebu
ttal testimony on
Palen Solar Energy Genera
tin
g System
(2014,
9 )
;
Seven Mile Hill
a
nd Glenrock/Rolling Hills
impacts
+ Adde
ndum
, Wyom
ing (
20 14; 10
5 );
147
S
mallwood CV
35
R
ising
Tree Wind Energy Pro
ject DE
IR
, Mojave
(201
4, 32
);
Replies
on the Rising
Tree Wind Energ
y Project DEIR
, Mojave
(201
4, 15
);
Soitec Solar Develop
ment Project
PEIR
, Boulevard, San Die
g
o County
(
2014, 18
);
O
a
kla
nd Zoo expansion on Alamed
a whips
nake and
California red
-
legged frog (2014; 3
);
Alta
Ea
st Wi
nd Energy Project FEIS
, Tehachapi Pass
(2013, 23
);
Bl
y
the Solar
Power Project Staff Asses
sme
nt
, Cali
fornia Ene
rgy Commission
(2013
,
16 );
C
learw
ater and Yakim
a Solar Projects
DEIR
, Kern County
(2013
, 9
);
We
st Antelope Sola
r Energy Projec
t
IS/MND
, Antel
ope V
alley
(2013, 18
);
Cuyama Solar Project
DE
IR
, Carri
zo Plain
(2014, 19
)
;
Desert Rene
wable E
nergy Conse
rvation Plan (
DRECP)
EIR/EIS (
2015, 4
9 );
King
bird Solar Photovoltaic Project
EIR
, Kern County
(
20 13, 19
);
Lucerne Va
lley
S
ola
r Projec
t
IS/MND, San Bern
ardin
o County
(2013, 12
);
Tule Wind project
FEIR/FEIS
(Declaration)
(20
13;
31 );
Sunl
ight
Partners
LANDP
RO
Sola
r Projec
t
MND
(2013;
1 1
);
D
ec
lara
tion in opposition to BLM fracking
(2013;
5 );
Blythe
Ene
rgy
Project
(solar)
CEC Staff
Assessment
(201
3;
1 6
);
Rosam
ond
S
ola
r
Pr
oject
EIR
Add
endum
, Kern County
(2013;
13 );
Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR
, Bakersfield
(201
3; 13
);
Repl
ies
on
Soccer
Center Solar
Project
MND
(2013;
6 );
Soccer Center Solar Project
MND
, La
ncaster
(20
13; 10
);
Plainview
Sola
r Works
MND
, Lancast
er
(2
013; 10
)
;
Al
amo Solar Pr
o
ject MND
, Mojave Desert
(2013; 15);
Repl
ies
on
Imperial Valley Solar Compan
y 2 Pro
j
ect
(2
0 13; 10
)
;
Imperial Valle
y
Solar Company 2 Project
(201
3; 13
);
FRV
Orion
Sol
ar Proje
ct DEIR
, Kern Cou
nty
(PP12232)
(201
3; 9
);
Casa Diablo
IV Ge
othermal Development Project
(
2 013; 6
);
R
eply
on
Casa Diablo IV Geothermal De
velopme
n
t Pro
ject
(2013
; 8
);
Alta East Wind
P
roject
FEIS, Teh
achapi
Pass
(2013;
23 );
Metropolitan Air Park DEIR
, City of
San Diego (2013; )
;
Davidon Homes Tentative Subdi
visi
on
R
e
zoning Project
DEI
R
, Petaluma
(2013
; 9
);
Oa
k
land Zoo E
xpan
sion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake
(2013; 1
0 );
Ca
mpo Verde Solar project
FE
IR
,
I
m
perial
Valley
(2013; 1
1pp);
Neg Dec comments on Davis
Sewer
Trunk Reha
bilitation
(2013
; 8
);
No
rth St
eens Transmis
sion
Line
FEIS
, Ore
gon (
Declaration)
(2012;
62 );
Summer Solar and Spri
ngtime Solar Projects
I
s
m
La
ncaster
(2012; 8
);
J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lan
e E
nvironmental
Review
, Orinda
(
2012; 14
);
R
epl
ies
on
Hudson R
an
ch Power II Geother
mal Project and
Sim
bol
Calipatria
Plan
t II
(
201
2;
8 );
Hudson Ranch Pow
er
II Geothermal Project and
Simbol Calipatria Plant II
(2012; 9
);
D
esert Harvest Solar
Projec
t EIS
, near
Joshua Tree
(2012; 15
);
Solar
Gen 2 Array Pr
oject D
E
IR
, El
Centro
(2012;
16 );
Ocotillo Sol Project
EI
S
, Imperial
Valle
y
(2012; 4
);
Beacon Photovo
ltaic
Pro
ject
DEIR
, Kern County
(2012; 5
);
Butte
Water District 201
2 Wate
r
Transfer Program
IS/MND
(2012; 11
);
148
S
mallwood CV
36
Mount Sig
nal
and
Calexico S
olar Farm Proje
cts DEIR
(2011; 1
6 );
City
of
Elk Grove Sphe
re of
Inf
luence EIR
(2011; 2
8 );
S
utter Landing Park Solar Phot
ovoltaic Project M
ND
, Sacramento
(2011; 9
);
Rabik/Gudat
h Proje
c
t, 22611
C
oleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay
(CPN
10 -
0002)
(
201
1; 4
);
Ivanpah Solar Electri
c
Generating
Syste
m (ISEGS)
(Declaration)
(2011; 9
);
Dra
ft Eagle Conserv
ation
Plan Guidance
, USFWS
(2
011; 13
);
Niles Canyon Safety Im
provement Pr
oje
ct
EIR/EA
(2
0 11;
16 );
Ro
ute
8 4 Safety Impro
vement Project
(
Declarat
ion
)
(201
1; 7
);
Rebuttal
on
Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Pow
er
DEIS
, Skamania Coun
ty,
(2010;
6 );
Whistling Ridge W
ind E
nergy Power
DEIS
, Skamania Coun
ty, W
a
shi
ngton
(2010; 41
);
Klickitat County’s Decision
s on
Windy Flat
s We
st Wind Energy P
roject (2010; 17
);
St.
John's Church Proj
ect
DEIR, Orinda
(20
10; 14
);
Resu
l
ts
Radio
Zone File #2009
-
001
IS/MND,
Conaway site,
D
avis
(201
0; 20
);
Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project
FEIR, Rancho Cordova
(2010;12
);
Results Radio Zone File #2
00 9
-
001
, Mace Blvd site, D
avis (2009;
10);
Answ
ers to Q
uestions on 33% RPS Implementatio
n Analy
s
i
s Prelimi
nary Results Report
(2009
;
9 );
SEPA De
termi
na
tion
of Non
-
s
ignif
i
can
ce regarding zo
ning adjust
ments for Skamania
County, Washington
(
Second Declaration
)
(
2008; 1
7 );
Draft
1A Summary Report
to CAISO (200
8 ; 10
);
Hilto
n
Man
or Proj
ect
Categ
o
ric
al Exemp
tion
,
Coun
ty of Placer
(2009; 9
);
Protest of CARE to A
mendm
ent to th
e Power
Purchase
and Sale Agreement
for
Pr
ocurement of Eligibl
e Renewable Energy Re
sources
Between Ha
tchet Ridge Wind LLC
and PG&
E (2009; 3
);
Te
hachapi Renewab
le Tr
a
ns
m
ission Project EIR/E
IS (20
0 9; 142
);
Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacram
ento
(20
09; 11
+ adde
n
dum 2
)
;
Declara
tion
in Support of C
are’s Pet
ition t
o
Modify D.
07 -
09 -
040 (2008; 3
);
The Public Utility Com
mission’s Imple
m
enta
t
ion
Analysis December 16 Work
shop
for the
Governor’s E
xecutive Order S
-
14 -
08 to implemen
t a 33% Renewabl
e Po
rtf
ol
io Standar
d by
20 20 (2008; 9
)
;
The Public Utility Co
mmi
ssion’s
Implementa
tion Analysis Draft Work Pl
an for the
Governor
’s Executive Or
der
S
-
14 -
08 to implement a 33% Rene
wable P
ortfolio
Standard by
2020 (2008; 11
);
Draft 1A Su
mmary Report to
California
In
de
pend
ent Sys
tem Operator for Planning Reserve
Margins
(PRM)
S
tudy (2008
; 7
.);
SEPA Determination of N
on
-
significan
ce regarding zo
ning
a
dju
s
tments for Skamania
Count
y, Washington
(
Declar
ation
)
(
20 08;
1 6
);
Colusa Generating Station
,
Californ
ia Energy Com
missi
on
PSA
(2007; 24
);
Rio d
e
l O
ro Specific Plan Project R
ecirculated
DEIR
,
Mather
(2008: 66
)
;
Replies
o
n
Regi
onal University Specific Plan
EI
R
, Roseville
(
2008; 20
);
Regional Univers
ity Specific Pla
n
EIR, Rose
ville
(2008: 33
);
Clar
k Pre
cast, LLC’s “Sugar
land”
project,
ND, Woodlan
d
(2008: 15
);
Cape Wind Project
DEIS
, Nant
ucket
(2008; 157
);
Yu
b
a Highland
s Spe
cific Plan
EIR
,
S
penceville,
Yuba Coun
ty
(2
006;
3 7
);
Replies to responses
on
North Table Mo
untain
MND,
Butte County
(
2006; 5
);
149
S
mallwood CV
37
North Table Mountain
MND
, But
t
e County
(2006; 1
5 );
Win
dy Point Wind Fa
rm
EIS (2006; 14
and
Powerpoint slid
e
replies
);
Shiloh I Wi
nd
Power Proje
ct EIR
, Rio Vista
(2005;
1 8
)
;
Bu
ena Vista Wind Energy Proj
ect
NOP, Byron
(
2004; 15
)
;
Callahan
Estates
Subdivision
ND, Winters
(2
004; 11
);
Wint
ers Highlands Subdivision
IS/ND
(2004; 9
);
Winters H
ighlands Subdivision
IS/ND
(2004; 13
);
Cr
eekside
H
ighlands P
roject,
Tract 7270
ND
(200
4; 21
);
P
etitio
n
to
Calif
o
rnia Fish
and Game C
ommission to
list
Burrowing Owl
(2003; 10
);
Altamon
t Pass
Wind Re
so
urce
Area
CUP
renewals
,
A
lameda County
(2003; 41
);
UC Davis Long
Range D
e
velopment
Plan
:
Neighborhood Ma
s
ter
P
lan
(2003;
23 );
Anderson
Marketpl
ace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003
;
18 );
Neg
ative
Dec
la
ratio
n of the proposed expansion of Temple B’n
ai
Tiky
a
h (2003
;
6 );
Antonio Mountain Ra
nch Specific Plan Pub
lic Draft EIR (
2002
;
23 );
Replies on
East Altam
ont Energy Center evidentiary
hearing
(20
02 ;
9 );
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Re
port, T
h
e P
romenad
e (2002
;
7 );
Recirculated Initi
al Study for
Cal
pine’
s prop
osed
P
aja
ro Valley Energy C
enter (2
002
;
3 )
;
UC Merced
--
Declaration
(2
002
;
5 )
;
Replies
on
Atw
ood Ranc
h
Unit III Subdivision
FEIR
(2
003
;
22 );
Atwo
od Ranch Unit III S
ubdivis
ion
EIR
(
2002
;
19 );
Califo
r
nia Energy
Commission Staff Report on GWF Trac
y Pea
ker P
roject (2002
;
20 )
;
S
il
ver Ben
d Apa
rtments
IS/MND
, Pl
acer County
(2002
;
13 );
UC Merced Long
-
r
ang
e Development Plan DE
IR and
U
C Merced
C
ommunity Plan DEIR
(2001
;
26 );
Colusa Count
y Pow
e
r P
lant
I
S, Maxwell
(2001
;
6 );
Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom
, Cal
ifornia
(2001
;
5 );
Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resourc
e
s Implementation
and Monit
oring
Pro
gram (B
RMIMP) for the Metcalf
E
nergy Cente
r (200
0 ;
10 );
Met
c
alf
Energy
Center
,
Califor
nia
Energy Commission
FSA
(2000);
US
Fish and Wildlife Ser
vice
Section 7 consultation with the C
alifornia Energy
Commission
r
egardi
ng
Calp
ine and Bechtel Corporatio
ns’ Metcalf
Ene
rgy Cen
t
er (2000
;
4 );
California Energy Commission’s Prelimin
a
ry Staff Asses
sment
of
the proposed Metcalf
Energ
y Center (2000: 11
);
Sit
e
-
spe
cific management plans for
the Natomas Basi
n Conservancy’s mit
igation
l
ands,
prepared by Wildlands, I
nc. (2000
: 7
)
;
Affidavit
of K. Shawn
Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage C
ouncil,
et al.
(Plai
n
tif
fs
) vs. Bruce
Babbitt, Sec
retary, U.S. Department of the
Inte
rior, et al. (Defendants
), Injuries caus
ed by
the No Surpri
ses
pol
icy a
nd final rule which codifies t
hat po
licy (
1 9
99: 9
).
California Boar
d of Fores
try’s
p
ropose
d
amended F
orest Practices Rules (19
99);
Su
nset
S
kyr
anch Airport Use Permit
IS/MND
(1
999);
Ball
ona
West Bluffs Project Env
ironmental Impac
t Report (
1999
;
ora
l prese
n
tation);
Draft Recover
y Plan
for
Gian
t Garte
r Snake
(Fed
. Reg. 64
(17
6):
4 9497
-
49498
) (1999
;
8 );
Draft Recovery P
lan for
Arr
oyo
S
o
uth
western Toad
(1998);
Pacific Lu
mber Co
. (Headwate
rs)
H
CP & EIR, Fortuna
(1998
;
28 );
N
atoma
s
Ba
sin
HCP
Permit
Amen
dment
, Sacramento
(1998
);
150
S
mallwood CV
38
San
Diego
Multi
-
Sp
ecie
s Conse
r
vation Pro
gram
FEIS/FEI
R
(1997
;
10 );
C
omments on
o
ther Environmental R
eview
D
ocum
ents:
Pro
posed
Regu
l
ati
on for California Fish and
Gam
e Cod
e Section 3503.5
(2015: 12
);
Statement of Overr
iding Considerat
ions related to ext
ending
Al
tamont Wi
nds, Inc.’s
Conditional Use Pe
rmit PL
N
2014
-
00028
(2015; 8
);
Cov
ell Village
PEIR, D
avis
(20
0 5; 1
9 )
;
Bureau of Land Manageme
nt Wind Energy Programmatic E
IS Sc
oping
(2003
;
7 .);
NEPA Enviro
nmental Analysis fo
r Biosa
fety Level
4 National Biocontainment Labo
rato
ry
(
N
BL) at UC
Da
vis (2003: 7
);
Notice
of Preparation of
UC Merced Commu
nity
a
nd
A
rea Plan EIR, o
n behalf o
f The
Wildlife Society
—
Western Section (2001
: 8
.)
;
Preli
minary Draft Yol
o County Habitat Co
nservat
ion Plan (2001; 2
letters totaling 35
.
);
Merc
e
d Cou
nty G
eneral Plan
Revision, notice of N
egative Decla
ration (2001: 2
.)
;
No
tice of Pr
eparation of Ca
m
pus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7
.);
Draft Recovery Plan f
or
th
e bighorn shee
p in the Peninsular
Range
(
Ovis candensis
) (2000);
D
raft Recovery P
lan for
the Califo
r
nia R
ed
-
legged Fr
og (
Rana aurora drayt
onii
),
on behalf
of Th
e Wil
d
lif
e Society
—
Wes
tern Section
(2
000: 10
.);
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft E
nviro
nmental Imp
act Statement, on b
ehalf o
f
The Wildlife Society
—
Wester
n Section (2
000: 7
.);
State
Water
Proje
ct Supplemen
tal Water Purchase Pr
o
gram, Draft Pro
gram
E
IR
(1997);
Davis Gener
al Plan
Update
EIR (2000);
Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10
);
Prop
osed
termi
nation of Critical
Habitat
Designation under the Endangered S
pecies
Act
(F
e
d. Reg. 64
(113): 318
71 -
31 874) (1999);
NOA Draft Addendum
t
o the Final H
andbo
o
k f
or Habitat Conservatio
n Pl
anning and
Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the H
CP 5
-
P
oint
Polic
y Plan (Fed. Reg
. 6
4(45):
11485
-
11490) (1999; 2
+ attachmen
ts)
;
Covel
l
Center Pr
oject EIR and
EIR
Supplement (
1997).
Position
Stat
ements
I
prep
a
red
the following position s
t
atements
for t
he Western Section of The
Wildlife Society, a
nd one fo
r nea
rl
y 200 scientists
:
Recomme
nded that the California Department of
Fi
sh and
G
ame priori
tize the exte
rmina
tion
of the
introduced south
ern w
ater snake
in n
o
rth
ern California. The Wildl
i
fe Society
--
We
stern Section (2001);
Recommended that The Wi
ldlife So
ciety
—
W
estern Section appo
int or
recommend members
of the independent s
cie
ntific
r
eview pane
l for the UC
Merce
d environmen
tal review proce
ss
(2
001);
Oppo
sed t
h
e s
iting of the University o
f
California’s
10th campus on a sensitive vernal
pool/grassl
and compl
ex ea
st
of Merced. The Wi
ldlife
Society
--
Western Section (2000);
Oppos
ed
the leg
a
lization o
f ferret owne
rship
in Californ
ia. The Wildlif
e Soc
iety
--
West
ern
S
e
cti
on (2000);
Opposed the P
r
oposed “No Sur
prises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conser
vation
Ag
reeme
nt
” rules, including
permit
-
shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg
. V
ol. 62,
No.
151
S
mallwood CV
39 103, p
p. 29091
-
2909
8 and
No. 113, pp
. 32189
-
32194).
This
statement
was
s
ign
ed by 188
scientists and
w
ent to the res
ponsible federal agencies, as well as to the
U.S. Sena
te an
d
House of Representa
tives.
Posters at Professional Meetings
Ley
vas
, E. an
d
K. S. Sma
llwood. 2015.
Reha
bilitating i
njured animals t
o off
set and re
ctify
win
d
project impacts. Confer
e
nce on Wind En
ergy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9
-
12 March
2015
.
Smallwood, K. S.,
J. Moun
t, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E.
Wa
lther,
B
. Karas. 2
015. Integrat
ed
de
tection tria
ls to improve th
e acc
uracy of f
atali
t
y r
ate estimates at wind pro
j
ects. Confere
nce on
Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berl
in, Germa
ny, 9
-
1 2 March 2015.
Smal
lwood,
K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lesso
ns
learned
from five
years of avia
n mor
tality
resea
rch in the Altam
ont P
ass WRA. A
WEA c
o
nfe
rence, Denver, May 2005.
Neher, L., L.
Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen
-
Nakafugi,
and K.S.
Small
wo
od. 2005. Bird’s ey
e
view
on California wind. AWEA conference,
Den
ver, Ma
y
2005.
Sm
allwood, K. S
., C.
G. Thelande
r and L. Spiegel
.
200
3. Toward
a pre
d
ict
ive model of avian
fatali
t
ies in the Alt
amont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003
Conferen
ce an
d
Convention,
Austin,
Texas.
Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002
.
P
ocket G
o
pher Respo
nse to Yellow
Star
-
thistle Era
dication
as part
of G
rassland R
estor
a
tio
n at Decommissioned Mathe
r
Air Force Bas
e, Sacramento County,
California. White Mount
ain Resea
rch S
ta
tion Open House, Ba
rcroft
Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and Michael
L.
Morriso
n
. 2002. Fr
esno kangaroo
rat
(
Dipodomys n
itratoides
)
Cons
ervat
ion Resear
ch at
Res
ources Management Area 5,
Lemoore Naval
Air Station.
White
Mountain Research Station
Open Hous
e, Ba
rc
roft Station.
Smal
lwood,
K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differen
tia
ting mo
u
ntain lion
and dog trac
ks. T
hird
Mountai
n Lion Workshop,
Pres
cott, AZ.
Smit
h
, T
. R. and K. S. Smallwood.
2000. Effects
of study area size, location, season, and all
ometry
on
repo
rt
ed
Sorex
shrew dens
ities.
Annual Meeting of the Western Section
of
The Wil
d
life Socie
ty.
Presenta
tions
at Professi
onal Meetings an
d Sem
inars
Dog
dete
c
tions of bat and b
ird fat
ali
t
ies at wind fa
rms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.
East Bay
Regi
on
al Park District 20
19 Stew
ardship Seminar
,
Oakland, California,
13 Novembe
r
2019
.
Re
poweri
ng t
he
Altam
ont Pass.
A
ltamont Symposium, Th
e Wildlife
Soci
e
ty
–
Western Section, 5
Febr
u
ary 2017.
Dev
eloping methods to reduce bird mortality in t
he Altamo
nt Pa
ss
Wind Resource Area
, 1999
-
152
S
mallwood CV
40 2007
. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlif
e S
ocie
ty
–
Western S
ection
, 5
Feb
ruary
2017.
C
ons
ervation and
recovery
of burrow
ing o
w
ls in Santa C
l
ara V
alley
. S
a
nta Clara Vall
ey Habitat
Agency, Newark, California, 3 Febr
uary 2017
.
Mi
ti
gation of Raptor Fa
talitie
s in t
he Altamont Pass Wind Resource A
rea
. Ra
pto
r
Research
Founda
tion
Me
eting
, Sacramento
, California, 6 Novem
ber 2015.
From
burrows to behavior: Researc
h
and managemen
t for burrowi
ng owls in a diverse landscape.
Californi
a Bur
ro
wing Owl Consortium
meetin
g, 24 October 2015, San Jose, Californ
ia.
Th
e C
h
allenges o
f repo
weri
ng.
Keyn
ote presenta
tion at Conference on
Wind Ener
gy an
d
Wildlife
Impacts, Berlin, G
e
rmany, 10 Marc
h 2015.
Research Highlights Altamont Pass 20
11 -
2015.
Scien
ti
fic Review Committe
e, Oakl
and, California,
8 July 2015.
Siting
win
d tu
rbi
n
es to mini
mize r
apto
r c
ollis
ions: Altamo
nt Pass Wind Resource
Area. US
Fish
a
nd Wildlife Service Golden E
a
gle Working Gr
oup, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015.
Evaluati
on of
n
est boxes as a burr
owing o
wl conservation strategy. Sacramento C
hap
ter
of
t
he
Western
Secti
on,
The
Wild
life Society
. Sacramento, Califor
nia, 26 Au
gust
2 013.
Predicting collision h
a
zard zones to
guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Confer
ence on w
ind
p
ow
er and environmenta
l impac
ts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5
-
7 February 20
13. Im
pac
t
s of Wind
Turbin
es o
n W
ildli
fe. Californ
ia Council for Wildli
fe Rehabil
itato
r
s, Yosemite,
California, 12
N
ovember 2012.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats.
Madrone A
udubo
n
Society, Santa Rosa
, Calif
ornia,
20 February 2012.
Comparing Wi
nd
Turb
ine
Impacts ac
ross N
orth
Am
erica
. California
Energy Commission St
aff
Worksh
op: R
e
ducing the Impacts of Energy
Infrastructure
on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered
Wind Tur
bines
t
o Minimize Raptor C
ollisio
ns. California Energy Commission
Staff
Wo
rksh
op:
Reducing t
he Imp
acts
of
Ener
gy Infrastru
cture on Wildlife, 20
July 2011
.
Si
t
ing Repowered Wind Turbines
t
o Minimize Rap
tor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific
Rev
iew Commi
ttee
me
eting, 17 February
2011
C
omparing Wind Turbine Impacts across N
ort
h Am
eri
c
a. Confere
nce on
Win
d e
nergy
and Wildlif
e
impacts,
Trondheim,
Norway, 3
May
2 011.
Update on Wildlife Imp
a
cts in the Alt
amont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposi
um, The
W
ildli
fe
Society
—
Western Se
ction,
Riverside, California, February 2011.
Si
ting
Re
p
owered Win
d Turb
ines
to
Mini
mize Raptor
Collisions. Raptor
Sy
mposium, T
he Wi
l
dlife
153
S
mallwood CV
41 Society
-
Western Sect
i
on, Riverside,
California, February 2011.
Wildlife mortali
ty caused
by w
in
d turbine collision
s. Ecol
ogical Society of America, Pittsburgh,
Pe
nnsy
lva
n
ia, 6 Augu
st 201
0. Map
-
base
d repowering
and reorganization o
f a wind f
arm t
o
minimize burrowing owl fata
l
ities.
Califor
nia burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermo
re, Calif
ornia
,
6 February 2010.
E
nvironm
ental barriers to wind power. Getting
Re
al A
bou
t
Renewable
s: Eco
nomi
c a
nd
En
vironmental
Barriers to Biofuels
and Wind E
nergy
.
A symposium sponsored by th
e
Environmental
& Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of
Houston
Law C
en
ter, Houston, 23
Fe
bruary
2007.
Lessons learned about bird coll
isi
ons
wit
h
wind turb
ines i
n th
e A
ltamo
nt Pass and
other US wind
farms.
Meeting wi
th Ja
p
an Ministry of the Environme
n
t and Japan Mi
nistry of the Economy, Wild
Bird Society of J
apan, and
othe
r
NGOs Tokyo, Japan,
9 Novem
ber 2006.
Lessons learned about bird
col
lisi
ons
with wind
turbin
es i
n t
he Al
tamont Pass
and other US wind
far
ms. Sympos
ium o
n
bird collisions with wind t
u
rbines. Wild B
ird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan,
4 Novembe
r 2006.
Respo
ns
es of Fresno kangar
oo rats
to habitat improvements in an adaptiv
e m
anag
eme
n
t framewor
k.
Cal
ifor
nia
Soci
ety for Ecol
ogical Restoration (S
ERCAL) 13
t
h
Ann
u
al Conference, UC Santa
Barb
a
ra, 27 October
2006.
Fatality associations as the basis fo
r predict
ive m
od
els of fatalities i
n the A
ltamont Pass Wind
Resource Area. EEI/A
PLI
C/PI
ER
W
orkshop, 2
006 Bi
olog
ist
Task
Force and A
vian Interaction with
Electric
Facil
i
ties Meeting, Pleasanton, Ca
l
ifornia, 28 Ap
ril 2006.
Burrowing owl burrows and wind tur
bine coll
ision
s
in the Altamont Pas
s Wind
Resou
rce Area. The
Wildlife Society
-
Wes
tern
Se
c
tion Annua
l Meet
ing,
Sa
crame
nto, Califor
nia, February 8, 2006
.
Mitigat
ion a
t
wind farms. Workshop: Under
s
tanding and re
solving bird and bat impacts. American
Wind E
nergy Ass
ociat
io
n and Audubon Socie
ty. Los
Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.
I
ncor
por
a
ting data
from t
he C
ali
forni
a Wildlife H
abitat Relationships
(CWHR) sys
tem i
n
to an
impact assessment tool
for birds near
wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting,
Marcus Ye
e,
Li
nd
a Spiegel, Monica P
arisi.
Workshop: Understanding and resolving
bir
d an
d b
a
t impacts.
Amer
ican
Wi
nd En
ergy Associa
tion and Audubon Soci
ety. Los A
ngele
s
, CA. January 10 and 11,
20 0
6. Toward ind
icating threats to birds by California’s new
wind farm
s. Ca
li
fornia Energy Commi
ssion,
Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Avian colli
sio
ns i
n t
h
e Altamont
Pass.
Cal
ifo
rnia
Energy Commi
ssion, Sacramento, Ma
y 26, 2005
.
Ec
o
logical solutions for avian
c
ollisions with
wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Reso
urce
Area
. EPR
I
Environmental Secto
r Counc
il, Monterey, California, February 17,
20 05.
154
S
mallwood CV
42 Ec
o
logical so
lution
s fo
r a
vian
collisions w
ith wind turbines in
the Altamo
nt Pa
s
s Wind Resource
Area. The Wi
l
dlife Society
—
Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, C
alifornia
, Jan
ua
ry 19,
2005.
Assoc
iations
between avian fatalities and attribut
es
of e
lec
t
ric distri
bution
pol
es
in Ca
lifornia.
Th
e
Wildlife Society
-
Western Se
ction
Annual Meeting, Sacramento,
C
alifornia, Jan
uary 19, 2005.
Minimizing avian mortality in
the Alta
mont
Pa
ss Wind Resources A
rea. UC
Davis Wind Energy
Collaborative Forum
, P
alm
Spr
i
ngs, Calif
ornia,
Dec
emb
er 14
, 2004.
Sel
ecting electric distr
ibution po
les f
o
r priority retrofitting to r
e
duce raptor mo
rtality. Raptor
Research Foundation Meeting,
Bakersfie
ld, C
al
ifornia, November 1
0, 2004
.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats t
o h
abit
at
i
mprovement
s in a
n ad
apt
ive m
anagement fr
amework.
Annual Meeti
ng of the
Socie
t
y for Ecological Restoration
,
South Lake Ta
hoe, California, October
16, 2004.
Lessons l
earned fr
om fi
ve
years of avian mor
tality
research at the Altamont Pass Wind Res
our
ces
Are
a
in Califo
rnia.
The
Wil
dlife
Society Ann
ual Meeting, Calgary,
Canada, S
eptem
b
er 2004.
The ecology and im
p
acts of power
generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petro
leum Asso
ciati
on
,
Sacramento, Calif
ornia,
August 18, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortal
ity
in
the
Altamont P
ass Wi
nd R
eso
urce
Area. Califo
rnia Burrowing Owl
Co
nsortium m
eetin
g
, Hayward, California, Febru
a
ry 7, 2004.
B
urrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass W
ind Resou
rce A
re
a. California Burro
wing Ow
l
Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2
003
.
R
apt
o
r Mortalit
y at t
he A
lta
mont
Pass Wind Re
source Area. National
Wind Coor
dinat
i
ng
Committee, Washington, D.
C
., November 17
, 2003.
Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass
Wind Res
ource
A
rea. Annual Meeting
of the
Raptor
Research Foundation, Anchorage
, A
lask
a,
S
eptember,
2003.
Rap
tor
Mort
ality at the
Altamont Pass Wind R
esource Ar
ea. A
n
nual Meeting of the Raptor
R
e
search Foundat
ion, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
Cal
ifornia m
ounta
in
lions. Ecological
& Envir
onmental Issues Seminar, Department of
Bi
olog
y,
C
alifornia
State
Univ
ers
ity,
Sacramento,
November, 2000.
Intr
a
-
and int
er
-
tu
r
bine string comparison of fa
t
alities to ani
mal burr
ow densities at Altamont Pass.
Nation
al Wind C
oordi
na
ting Committee, Car
mel, Ca
lifornia, May, 2000.
Using a Geograph
ic
Posi
tio
n
ing System
(GPS)
to
map
wild
life and hab
itat. Annual Meeting
of the
Wes
tern
S
ection of The Wildlife Socie
t
y, Riverside,
CA, January, 2000.
155
S
mallwood CV
43 Suggested standards for s
cience ap
plied
t
o conservation issu
es. Ann
ual Meeting of the Western
Section of
The
Wil
dli
f
e Society,
River
side
, C
A, Ja
nuary, 2000.
The indicators fram
ework appl
ied t
o
ecological restoration in Y
o
lo County, Cal
ifornia. Society for
Ecological Restoration,
September
25,
19 99.
Ecological res
toratio
n in the context of animal social unit
s a
nd t
hei
r
habitat a
reas.
Soci
ety
for
Ecological R
estoration, September
24, 1999.
Rel
a
ting Indicators of Ecologica
l
Health and In
tegrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agricu
lture
and
Nati
ve
Biota. Internation
al Conf
erence on Ecosystem Health, August 16,
19 99.
A
c
rosswalk f
rom th
e En
dan
gered
Species Act
to the HCP Handbook
and real H
CPs.
S
outhern
California Edison, C
o
. and Californ
ia Energy Commission, March 4
-
5, 1999.
Mount
ain lion
track
c
ounts in California
: Impli
cations for Management. Ecological &
E
nvi
ronm
ent
a
l Issues S
eminar
, De
par
tment
of Biologic
al Sciences, Californ
ia State U
niver
s
ity,
Sacramento, November 4,
1998.
“No Sur
prises”
--
Lack of science in the HCP process
. Califor
nia N
at
ive Plant Society A
nnual
C
onservation Conference, The Presidio,
San
Fra
nci
s
co, Septem
ber 7,
199
7. In Y
our Interest
. A half hour weekly
show aired
on C
h
annel 10 Television, Sacrame
n
to. In this
ep
isode, I served on a panel of experts discuss
ing probl
ems w
it
h the implementatio
n of th
e
Endangered Species Act. Aired August
31 , 19
97. Spatial s
caling
of
poc
ket g
opher (
Geomy
idae
) density. Southw
estern Ass
ociat
i
on of Naturalists 44th
Meeti
n
g, Fayettevill
e, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Estimating prai
rie dog a
nd po
ck
et gopher burrow vo
lume. S
outhwestern Association of Naturalists
44 th M
eet
i
ng, Fayett
eville
, Ar
kan
sas,
April 10, 19
97. Ten years of mou
ntain lion
trac
k
survey. Fifth Mountain Lion
Workshop, San
Diego, February 27,
1996.
Study and interpre
tive desi
gn ef
fe
cts on mountain lio
n densi
ty estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion
Work
sho
p, S
an
D
iego, Febr
uary 2
7, 1
996
.
Sm
all animal c
ontrol. Session moder
ator and s
peake
r
at the California Farm Conf
e
rence,
Sacrame
nto, California, Feb. 28, 1995.
Small animal
control.
Ecol
og
ical Farming Confer
ence, A
sylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995.
H
abi
tat
ass
o
ciations o
f the
Swai
nso
n’s H
awk in the S
acramento Valley’s ag
ricultural
land
s
cape.
1994 Raptor Research
F
oundation Meet
ing, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Alfalfa as wildlife
habitat.
Seed
I
ndustry Conference,
Woodla
nd, California, May 4, 1994.
156
S
mallwood CV
44 Habitats
an
d ve
rte
b
rate pests
: impa
cts
and
mana
gement. Mana
ging Farmland to Brin
g Back Gam
e
Bir
d
s and W
ildlife to the Centra
l
Valley. Y
olo
County Resource Conservation District, U.C. D
avis,
Feb
ruary
1 9, 1994.
Managemen
t of go
phers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat.
Or
land
Al
f
alfa Produ
ction
Meet
ing
and
Sacramento V
alley Alfalfa Product
ion Meetin
g, Fe
b
ruary 1 and 2, 1994.
Patter
n
s of wildlife
movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and
Fisherie
s Bio
lo
gy Seminar
Series:
Recent
Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conser
vat
ion
Bio
l
ogy, U.C.
Davis,
Dec
. 6
, 199
3. Alfalfa
as wildlife habitat.
California
Alfa
l
fa Symposium, Fresno, Califo
r
nia, Dec. 9, 1
993.
Management of pocket gophers in Sacrame
nto Valle
y alf
al
fa. California Alfa
lfa Sym
posium,
Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 19
93. As
soc
i
ation anal
ysis o
f ra
pto
rs in
a farming l
andscape. Plenary spe
aker at Ra
ptor
R
esearch
Foundation Meeting,
C
harlotte, Nort
h Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993.
Landscape strateg
ies for b
iolog
ic
al control and IPM.
Plenar
y speaker, International Conference on
In
tegr
ate
d
Resource
Manage
ment
an
d Sus
tainable Agr
iculture, Beijing, Ch
ina, Sept.
11,
1 993.
Landscape Ecology Stud
y
of Pocket Gop
hers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davi
s, July 1
993.
P
atterns of wildlife
moveme
nt in a farming landscape. Spatial Dat
a A
naly
sis
Colloquium
, U.C.
Dav
is,
Augu
st 6, 1993.
Sound stewardship of
wildlife.
Vete
r
inary Medicine Seminar: Ethi
c
s of Animal Us
e, U.C. Davis.
May 1993.
Landscape ecology
study of
pocke
t
gophers in alfalfa.
Five C
ounty Grower's Meeting, Tracy,
Califor
nia
. Fe
bru
a
ry 1993.
Turbul
ence
an
d the
community o
rganizers: The role o
f invading
spec
i
es in ordering a turbulent
s
y
stem, and the
factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduat
e Student
Asso
ci
ation Colloquium,
U
.C. Dav
is. May 1990.
Evaluation of exotic v
ert
ebra
te
p
ests. Four
teenth
Ver
teb
rate
Pest Confere
nce, Sacramento,
Cali
fornia. Ma
rch 1
9 90.
Analytical methods for
p
redicting succ
ess of mammal introductions to North America.
The West
ern
S
ec
tion of the Wildlif
e Socie
ty, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.
A st
ate
-
wid
e m
o
untain lio
n trac
k su
rve
y. Sa
cramento Cou
nty Dept Parks and Re
creation.
April
1986.
The mountain lion in
C
alifornia. Dav
is Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 19
85. Ecol
ogy G
ra
duate Student Semin
ars, U.
C. Davis, 1985
-
1990: Social behavior o
f t
he m
oun
t
ain lion;
157
S
mallwood CV
45 Mounta
in l
ion
cont
rol; Politic
al status of the moun
tain lion
in Ca
l
ifornia.
Other forms of Par
t
icipation at P
rofessional Meetings
Scientific Committee,
C
onference
on W
in
d energy and Wildli
fe impa
cts,
Berlin
,
Germany
,
March 2015
.
Sci
ent
ific
Co
m
mittee,
Co
nferen
ce o
n W
ind e
nergy and Wi
ldlife impacts,
Stock
holm,
Swed
en, F
e
bruary 2013.
Workshop co
-
pr
e
senter at Bird
s & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Inf
ormation
shari
ng
week, Bird special
ist stu
dies for proposed wind energy faciliti
es
in S
out
h
Africa,
E
ndange
red
Wil
dlife
Trust, Darl
ing, South Africa, 3
-
7 October
2011.
Scientific Committee,
Confe
r
ence on Wind e
nergy and Wildlife impacts,
Trondheim,
Norway
, 2
-
5 May
2011
.
Chair of Animal Da
mage Ma
nagement Session, The Wildlife Society
, A
nnua
l M
e
eting,
Ren
o, Nev
ada,
Se
ptemb
er 26, 2001.
Chair of Technical
Session:
Human
communities and ecosystem he
a
lth: Comparin
g
perspectives and making connection. Managi
ng for Ec
osyst
em
Health, Internatio
nal
Con
gress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento,
C
A A
ugu
s
t 15
-
20, 1
999.
Stud
ent
Awar
ds Committee
, Annual Meeting of t
he Western
Sect
i
on of The Wildlife
Society,
R
iverside, CA,
January, 2000.
Student Mentor, Annual Meetin
g of the
Weste
rn
Section of The Wil
dlife S
ociety, Riverside,
CA, January, 2000.
Pr
inte
d M
a
ss Media
Smallw
ood,
K.
S., D
. Mooney, an
d M. McGuinness. 2003
. We must
stop
t
he UCD biolab now. Op
-
Ed to
t
he Davis Enter
prise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake thr
eatens Da
vis.
Op
-
Ed to the Davis En
terpris
e.
Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Miti
gat
ion
of
h
abitation.
The F
latl
and
er, D
avis, Califo
rnia.
Entrikan, R.K.
and K.S.
Small
w
ood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed
law would lock
in new taxes. Op
-
Ed
to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwo
od, K
.S
. 2000. Davis dele
gation
lobbies Congress for Wildlife conserva
tio
n. O
p
-
E
d
to the
Da
vis En
terp
ris
e.
S
mallwood, K.
S. 1998. Davis Visi
ons. The
Flatl
a
nder, Davis, California.
Sm
a
llwood, K.S.
1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water.
The Flatl
ander
,
Davis, California.
158
S
mallwood CV
46 Smallw
ood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP.
Op
-
Ed
to
t
he Davis E
nterpr
ise.
R
adio/
Television
PBS News Hour,
FOX
News,
Ener
gy in
America: Dead Birds Unintend
e
d Consequence
of Wind Power
Development
, August 2011.
KXJZ
Capital
Publi
c
Radio
--
Insight (H
ost Jef
frey Callison). Mountain lion attacks
(w
ith
gue
s
t
Professo
r Rich
ard
Cos
s).
23 April 200
9;
KXJZ Capital Publ
ic Radio
-
-
Ins
i
ght (Host Jeffrey Callison).
Wind farm Rio
Vista Renewable
Power. 4 September 2008;
K
QED QUEST
Epis
od
e #111. Bird colli
sions w
ith wind turbines. 2007;
KDVS Speaki
ng
in T
ong
u
es (host R
on Gli
ck),
Yo
lo Co
unty HCP: 1
hour. December 27, 2
001;
KDVS
Spea
k
ing in Tongues (host Ron Gli
c
k), Yolo Count
y HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001;
KDVS Speaking i
n Tongues
(hos
t
Ron Glick), Yolo Co
unty HC
P: 1 hour. February 8, 2001;
KDVS Sp
eak
ing
in
T
ongues (ho
st Ron
Gli
ck
& Sha
wn Smallwood
), California Energy
Crisis: 1
hour.
Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaki
n
g in Tongues (
host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hou
r. 1998;
Dav
is
Cable Channel (hos
t Geral
d Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis:
ha
lf h
our
.
June, 20
00;
D
avis
Ca
ble C
hannel (host
ed by Davis League of
Women Vot
ers),
Measure O debate: 1 hour.
O
c
tober, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Spe
cies Act:
half
h
our. 1997.
Revie
ws of J
ournal Papers
(
Scientific journals for
wh
om I
’ve
provided p
eer re
view
)
J
ourna
l
Journal
A
merican Naturalist
Jo
urnal of A
nimal
Ecology
Journal of Wildlife
Management
Wes
tern North American Naturalist
Auk
Journal o
f Raptor
Resea
rc
h
Biological Conse
rvation
National Renewable Energy Lab reports
C
anad
ian
Journal of
Zoolo
gy
O
iko
s
Ec
osystem Heal
th
The Prairie Natura
list
Envi
ronme
n
tal Conservation
Restoration
Ecology
159
S
mallwood CV
47 J
ourna
l
Journal
Envir
onmental Management
Southwestern Naturalist
Functiona
l Eco
lo
gy
The Wildlife Soc
iety
--
W
estern Section Trans.
Journal of Zool
ogy
(Lo
ndo
n
)
Proc. In
t. Con
gres
s o
n Man
aging for Ec
osystem Health
Journ
al of Appl
ied E
c
ology
Transactions in GIS
E
c
ology
Tropical
Ecology
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Peer J
B
iological
Cont
ro
l
The Condor
C
ommitte
es
•
Scientific Review Committee, Alamed
a C
ount
y,
A
ltamont Pa
ss Win
d Re
sou
rce A
rea
•
Ph.D. Th
esis Committee, Steve
Anderson,
Univ
e
rsity of California, Davis
•
M
S
Thesis Commit
tee, Marcus Yee, California State University,
Sacramen
to
160
S
mallwood CV
48 Ot
her Professional Ac
tivitie
s or Products
Testified in Federal Co
urt
in
Den
v
er during
2005 o
ver
the
fate
of radio
-
nu
clides in the soil at
Rocky
Fla
ts Pl
a
nt after exposure to burrowi
n
g animals.
M
y
clients won a judgment of $553
,000,000.
I
h
ave also
testi
fi
ed in many other ca
ses of
litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warre
n
-
A
lqui
st
A
ct, and ot
her en
viro
nme
ntal
laws. My cl
ients won most of the
cases for
whic
h
I testified.
Testified bef
o
re Environment
al Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regard
ing propo
sed W
hi
te
Pines
,
Amherst I
sland
,
and Fairview
Wind Energy projects.
Te
sti
fied
in
Skamania C
ounty
Hear
ing
in 2
009 on the p
otential impacts of z
oning the
Count
y
for
development of wind far
m
s and hazardou
s waste facilities.
Testified in deposition
in 2007 i
n the
c
ase of
O’Dell et al
. vs. F
PL Energy
in Houston, Texas.
Testifie
d i
n Kl
ick
i
tat County
Heari
ng i
n 2
006 o
n the potent
ial impacts of the Wi
ndy Point
Wind
F
arm.
Member
ships in Profess
i
onal Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foun
dation
H
onors
a
nd A
wards
Fulbrigh
t Resea
rch Fellowship to Indonesia, 19
87 J.G
. B
oswe
ll
F
ull Academ
i
c Sch
olar
shi
p, 19
81 college o
f choice
Certificate
of Apprec
iatio
n
, The Wildlife Society
—
Weste
r
n Section, 200
0, 2001
Northern California Athletic Associa
tion Most
Valu
ab
le Cross Country Ru
nner, 1
984
American Legion Award, Corcoran H
igh
Sch
ool
,
1981, and
John
Muir
Ju
nior
High
, 1977
CIF Section Cha
mpion,
Cross Cou
ntry
i
n 1978
CIF Section Champio
n
,
T
rack & Fiel
d 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior
Record,
20 kilom
eter
ru
n, 1982
National A
ge Grou
p Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Commun
ity
Act
ivi
t
ies
Distr
ict 64
Lit
tle
Leag
ue Umpire, 2
003
-
200
7 Dixon Littl
e League U
mpire
,
2006
-
07 Davis Little Leag
u
e Chief Ump
ire
and Board member, 2004
-
2005
Davis Little Le
agu
e Safe
ty Of
fi
cer, 2004
-
2005
Dav
is Litt
le Le
ague Certified Umpire, 2002
-
2004
Da
vis
Lit
t
le League
Scorek
eepe
r,
2002
Davis Visio
ning Group member
P
etitioner
for W
r
it of Mandate under the Cali
f
ornia Environm
ental Quality Act against City
of Woodland de
cision to
appr
ov
e the Spring Lake S
pecific
Plan, 2002
Served on campaign commi
tte
e
s
f
or
C
ity Counci
l cand
idat
e
s
161
S
mallwood CV
49 Rep
resentative
Clients
/Funders
Law O
ffices of
Steph
a
n C. Volker
EDF Renewables
B
lum Collins, L
LP
National Renewable Energy Lab
Eric K. Gil
lespie Pr
ofess
io
nal Corporation
Alt
amont W
inds LLC
Law Offices of Berger & Mont
agu
e
Sa
lka
Energy
Lo
zeau |
Dru
ry
LLP
C
omstocks Bus
iness (magazine)
Law
Offices o
f Roy
Haber
BioResource Consultant
s
Law Offices
of Edward MacDonald
Tierra Data
Law Office o
f John Ga
briel
li
Black and Veatch
Law Off
ice of Bill Kopper
Terry Preston, Wild
lif
e Ec
olo
g
y Research
Cente
r
L
aw
Offic
e of Donald
B. Mooney
EcoStat, In
c.
Law Of
fice
o
f Veneruso & Moncharsh
US N
a
vy
Law Office
of Steven Thompson
US Department of Agricul
ture
Law
Offi
ce
of Brian Gaffney
U
S Fores
t Service
California Wildlife Federat
ion
US
Fi
s
h & Wildli
fe Ser
vice
D
efend
ers of Wildl
ife
US Department of
Justice
S
ierra
Club
California Energy Commi
s
sion
National
Endangered Species Network
California Office
of the A
ttorn
ey
General
Spirit of
the Sa
ge Council
California Department of Fi
sh
&
Wi
ldl
i
fe
The Hu
mane S
ocie
ty
Calif
ornia Depart
ment of Transportatio
n
Hagens
Berma
n
LLP
California Department o
f
Forestry
Env
ironmental Prot
ection Information Center
Cali
fornia De
partm
en
t of Food & Agricul
ture
G
oldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at
Law
Ven
tur
a
County Co
unsel
Cal
ifo
rnian
s for Renewa
ble Energy (CARE)
Cou
nty of Yol
o
Se
a
tuck Environmental Associati
o
n
Tahoe Region
al Planning Agency
Friends of the Columbia G
orge, Inc
.
Su
st
ainable Agriculture
Resear
ch & Education Program
Save Our Sceni
c A
rea
Sac
r
amento
-
Yol
o Mosq
uito
an
d Vec
tor Control
District
Alliance to
Protect N
antuc
k
et Sound
East Bay Regional P
a
rk District
F
riends of the Swainson’s Hawk
County of Alame
da
Alame
da Cr
ee
k Alliance
Don & La
Nelle S
ilverstien
Center for Biological Dive
rsi
ty
S
eve
n
th Day Adv
entist
Chu
rch
Cal
ifornia Nati
ve Plant Society
Escu
ela de la
Raza
U
nida
Endangered Wildlife Tr
u
st
Susan Peli
can and Howard Beeman
and BirdLife South
Africa
Re
siden
ts
Against Inconsiste
nt Deve
lopment, Inc.
AquAlliance
Bob Sarvey
Or
egon
Na
t
ural Deser
t Asso
ciat
ion
Mike
Boyd
Save
Our Sound
Hillcroft N
eighborhoo
d Fun
d
G3 Energy
and Pattern Ener
g
y
Joint Labor
Management Committee
,
Retail Food Industry
E
merald Fa
rms
L
is
a Rocca
Pacific Ga
s & Ele
ctric Co.
Kevin Jackson
Southern Cali
for
nia
Edi
s
on Co.
Daw
n Stov
er a
nd
Jay L
etto
Georgi
a
-
Pacific Timber Co.
Nancy Hava
ssy
N
orthern Territories Inc.
Cat
h
erine Portman
(for Brenda Cedarblade)
David Magney Environ
mental Co
nsult
in
g
Ventus Environmen
tal Sol
utions, Inc.
Wildlife History Foundat
ion
Pan
ora
m
a Environm
ental,
Inc
.
NextE
ra Energy Re
sources, LLC
Adams Br
oadwell Pr
ofess
i
onal Corporation
Ogin, Inc.
162
S
mallwood CV
50 Representat
ive special
-
status species experience
Common
name
Spec
ies n
am
e
Description
Fiel
d exper
ience
California red
-
legged frog
Ra
na
auro
ra
d
raytonii
P
rotoco
l se
arc
hes;
Many detecti
ons
Foothill yellow
-
legged fro
g
Ran
a
boylii
Presence surveys;
Ma
n
y detections
Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
Presence sur
veys;
Few
dete
ct
ions
California ti
ger sal
amander
Ambystoma californiense
Protoc
ol
sear
che
s
;
Many det
ection
s
C
oas
t ran
ge newt
Tari
cha torosa torosa
Sea
rches and
multi
p
le detections
Blunt
-
nosed l
e
opard lizard
G
ambelia sila
Detected in San Luis Obispo Coun
ty
Calif
ornia
h
orned l
izard
Phryno
soma co
ronatum frontale
Search
es;
Many detect
ion
s
W
est
e
rn pond tu
rtle
C
lemm
ys
marmo
rata
Searche
s
;
Many detections
San Joaqui
n kit
fox
Vulpes macrotis mutica
P
r
otocol searche
s
;
detections
Sumatran tiger
Panthera tigris
Track su
rveys
i
n Sumatra
Mountain
lion
P
uma concolor californicus
Research and
pu
blic
ati
o
ns
Point
Arena
moun
tai
n bea
ver
Aplodont
ia rufa nigra
Remote
camera ope
ratio
n
Giant kangaroo rat
Dipodom
y
s ingens
Detec
ted in Cholame Valley
San Joaquin
kangaroo r
at
Dipodo
mys n
it
ratoides
Monitoring
& habi
tat restoration
Monterey dusky
-
foote
d w
oodr
at
N
eotoma fus
cipes
luci
ana
Non
-
target captu
res and mapping of de
ns
Salt m
arsh
h
arvest mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris
Ha
bitat assessment, monitoring
Salinas harvest
mouse
Re
ithro
do
ntomys megalotus
di
stichlu
s
Captures; habitat assessment
Bats
The
rmal
im
a
ging surve
ys
Ca
lifo
rni
a cla
pper rail
Ra
llus longirostris
Sur
veys
and d
etect
i
ons
Golden eagle
Aquila chr
y
saetos
Numeric
al & behavioral surveys
Swainson’s hawk
Bute
o swainso
ni
Nu
me
rical & behavioral
surveys
Northern harrier
Circus cyaeneus
Num
eri
cal
& b
e
havioral s
urveys
Wh
ite
-
tail
ed kite
Elan
us leucurus
Numerical
& behavio
ral s
u
rveys
Loggerhead shrike
Lan
i
us ludovicianu
s
Large area surveys
Least Bell’s vireo
Vire
o bellii
pusil
lu
s
Detected in Monte
rey Cou
nty
Willow flycatcher
Empidonax trail
lii
ext
imu
s
Research
at Sie
rra
Nev
ada b
reeding site
s
Burrowing owl
Ath
ene cunicu
laria
hypugia
Numerical & behavior
a
l surveys
Val
ley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus cal
ifornicus
dimo
rp
hus
Monitored succe
ss of r
elocation and habitat
restoration
Ana
lyt
ical
Arroyo sou
thwest
ern
toa
d
Buf
o microscaph
us californicus
Resea
rch and re
port.
Giant garter snake
Thamnoph
i
s gigas
Resear
ch and publication
Northern goshawk
Accipite
r gentili
s
Res
ea
rch and publication
North
ern spotted owl
Strix occidentalis
Res
ear
ch a
nd
r
eports
A
lameda
w
hi
psn
ake
M
asticophis l
ateralis
euryxanthus
Expert tes
timon
y
163
Exhibit B
164
2656 29
th
Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887
-
9013
Paul E. Rosenfeld
, P
hD
(
310
)
795
-
2335
May 19
, 202
1 Paige F
e
nnie
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject:
Comments on
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
(SCH No.
2020110180
)
Dear M
s. Fennie
,
We have
reviewed the
April
2021
Draft Environmental Report
(“
DEIR
”) for the
4150 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Projec
t
(“Pro
ject”) located in th
e
City of
Hayward
(“
City”). The P
roject proposes
to construct
114,059
-
SF
of warehouse space
,
2,785
-
SF
of office
space, and 79 parking spaces on the
32 -
acre site.
Our review concludes t
hat the
DEIR
fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s
hazards and hazardous
materials,
a
ir
q
uality, and
g
reenhouse
g
as
impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An upda
ted
EIR
should
be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the
potential
hazards and hazardous materials, air quality
, and greenhouse gas
impacts
that the project may
have on the surrounding environment.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A 2017 Phase I Environmental Si
te Assessment
, provided as Appendix E to the Initial Study
,
recommended an update to the 2014 Risk Management Plan that was prepared to “control potential hazardous contamination and exposure.” The 2017 Phase I states:
“
We recommend preparing an RMP [risk
management plan] Addendum that presents the
planned development earthwork/grading, soil and ground water management protocol and vapor intrusion mitigation measures. The purpose of the RMP Addendum will be to provide more specific details regarding the development, and will propose any changes to the RMP to 165
2 accommodate the proposed development. The RMP Addendum should describe earthwork required for geotechnical soil improvements, such as over -
excavation and re
-
compaction of fills
or other ground improvemen
ts. The RMP Addendum should be submitted to the Water Board for their review and approval prior to construction
” (Appendix E, p. 22).
This recommendation has not been incorporated into the DEIR. An updated RMP is necessary for inclusion in a revised DEIR.
The revised DEIR needs to demonstrate the engagement of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board in the review of an updated RMP and mitigation that is necessary to ensure that the public and workers are not exposed to known contaminants at the site,
which include benzene and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Furthermore
, the selection of a vapor barrier as mitigation for contaminated vapors (as proposed in the DEIR on p. 4.3
-
15) should not be pre
-
selected; instead, the applicant should consider a
range of
alternatives
considering
this Phase I note:
“
The Water Board noted that future developments may require the proper management of soil and/or ground water, further risk assessment, additional cleanup work, mitigation measures, or some
combination of these tasks
” (Appendix E, p. 24).
Consideration of a wide range of alternatives to address contaminated vapors ,
including soil vapor
extraction and groundwater containment or extraction and treatment ,
should be documented in a
revised EIR. W
ater Board buy
-
in on the adequacy of any additional cleanup and the selected contaminated vapor remedy should also be documented in the revised EIR.
Air Quality
U
nsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions
The
DEIR’s
air quality analysis relies on emissions calculated with CalEEMod.2016.3.2 ( Appendix A,
p.
26 ).
1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site -
specific information, such as land
use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is
known, the user can change the default values and
input project
-
specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the
Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default val
ues are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected.
When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in
the
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Modeling Worksheets
(“AQ & GHG Worksheets”) as Appendix B t
o the
DEIR
, w
e found that
several model inputs were not consistent with information disclosed in the DEIR
. As a result, the
Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. As a result, a n updated
EIR should
1 CAPCOA (November 2017) CalEEMod User’s Guide,
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default
-
source/caleemod/0
1_user
-
39 -
s
-
guide2016
-
3 -
2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4
.
166
3 be prepared to include an updated air qua
lity analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality.
Use of an Underestimated Land Use Size
According to the DEIR, the Project proposes to construct 114,059
-
SF
of warehouse space
(p. ES
-
2).
However, r
eview of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “
Point Eden Industrial
Development
” model includes only 110,231
-
SF of
warehouse space
(see
excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp.
214, 249
, 278, 307
).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the proposed warehouse space is underestimated by 3,828 -
SF.
This
underestimation
present
s
an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall spa ce to be painted
(i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts)
.
2 Thus, b
y
underestimating
the proposed warehouse land use
,
the model
underestimate
s
the
Project’s construction
-
related and opera
tional emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Failure to Consider Cold Storage
Review of the Project’s CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the model fails to consider potential
cold storage requirements. As a result, the Project’s operational emissions may be underestimated.
Regarding the proposed warehouse space, the DEIR state
s:
“
The proposed building would provide approximately 114,059 square feet of warehouse space and a 2,785
-
square
-
foot of office, for a total size of approximately 116,844 square feet ” (p. ES
-
2).
As the above excerpt demonstrates, the DEIR fails to specify whether
the proposed warehouse
would
include cold storage.
As such,
the warehouse may require cold storage
.
However, review of the
CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “
Point Eden Industrial Development
” model fails to
include any amount of refrige
rated warehouse space
(see excerpt below) (Appendix B, pp. 214, 249
,
278, 307
).
2 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017,
available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default
-
source/caleemod/01_user
-
39 -
s
-
guide2016
-
3 -
2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4
, p. 28.
167
4 As you can see in the excerpt above, the “
Point Eden Industrial Development
” model fails to account for
potential cold storage requirements whatsoever.
This inadequacy pres
ents an issue, as
refrigerated warehouses release more air pollutants and greenhouse gas (“
GHG
”)
emissions when compared to unrefrigerated warehouses for three reasons.
First, warehouses equipped with cold storage (refrigerators and freezers, for example) are known to
consume more energy when compared to warehouses without cold storage. 3 Second, warehouses
equipped with cold storage typically require refrigerated trucks, which are known to idle for much longer when compared to unrefrigerated hauling trucks.
4 Third
, according to a
n October 2016 Institute
of Transportation Engineers (“ITE”
) report entitled
High
-
Cube Warehouse Vehicle Trip Generation
Analysis
,
cold storage warehouses result in
greater trip rates when compared to
transload & short
-
term
storage warehouses
.
5 Furthermore, as is discussed by SCAQMD,
“CEQA requires the use of ‘co
nservative
analysis’ to afford ‘fullest possible protection of the environment.’” 6 As such, the warehouse land use
should have been modeled as refrigerated space
in order account for the additional emissions that
refrigeration requirements may generate.
By modeling the Project’s emissions without refrigerated warehouse space, the DEIR may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
An
updated EIR should be prepared to account for the p
ossibility of refrigerated warehouse needs by future
tenants.
Unsubstantiated Reductions to CH
4 , CO
2 , and N
2 O
Intensity Factors
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “ Point Eden Industrial Development
” model
includes several reductions
to the
default CH
4 , CO
2 , and N
2 O
i
ntensity
f
actors
(see excerpt below)
(Appendix B, pp. 215, 250
, 279, 308
).
3 Managing Energy Costs i
n Warehouses, Business Energy Advisor,
available at
:
http://bizenergyadvisor.com/warehouses
4 “Estimation of Fuel Use by Idling Commercial Trucks,” p. 8, available at:
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/373.pdf
5 “HIGH
-
CUBE WAREHOUSE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS.” ITE, October 2016, available at:
https
://www.ite.org/pub/?id=a3e6679a%2De3a8%2Dbf38%2D7f29%2D2961becdd498 , p. 13.
6 “Warehouse Truck Trip Study Data Results and Usage” Presentation. SCAQMD Inland Empire Logistics Council, June 2014,
available at
:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default
-
source/ceqa/handbook/high
-
cube
-
warehouse
-
trip
-
rate
-
study
-
for
-
air
-
quality
-
analysis/final
-
ielc
_6
-
19 -
2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2
168
5 As you can see in the excerpt above, the CH
4 , CO
2 , and N
2 O intensity factors were reduced by
approximately
28%, 29%, and 33%, respectively.
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide
requires any changes to model defaults be justified.
7 According to the “User Entered Comments and
Non
-
Default Data” table, the justification provided for
these
change
s
is
:
“
Entered PGE RPS
” (Appendix B,
pp. 215, 250
, 278, 307
). Furthermore, regarding the Project’s anticipated utility company, the DEIR states:
“[T]
he project would continue to reduce its use of nonrenewable energy resources as the percentage of electricity g
enerated by renewable resources provided by PG&E continues to increase to comply with state requirements through Senate Bill 100, which requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total r
etail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045 ” (p. 5
-
2).
However, these changes remain unsupported for two reasons. First, simply
b
ecause the
State
has
renewable energy
goals
does not ensure that these goals will be achieved locally on the Project site or by the Project’s specific utility company.
Second, the DEIR fails to provide a source for the revised intensity factors.
As a result, we cannot verify the revised energy inte
nsity factors.
These
unsubstantiated reductions
present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the CH
4 , CO
2 , and N
2 O intensity
factors to calculate the Project’s
GHG
emissions associated with electricity use.
8 Thus, by including
unsubstantiated reductions to the
default
CH
4 , CO
2 , and N
2 O intensity factors, the model
may
underestimate the Project’s GHG emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural
and Area
Coating Emission Factors
Review of th
e CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “
Point Eden Industrial Development
” model
includes several reductions to the
default
architectural
and area
coating emission factors (see excerpt
below) (Appendix B, pp. 215, 250
, 279, 308
).
As you can
see in the excerpt below, the nonresidential exterior and parking architectural
and area
coating emission factors were each reduced from the default value of 150 -
to 100
-
grams per liter
(“g/L”).
As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires a ny changes to model defaults be
justified.
9 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non
-
Default Data” table, the justification
provided for
these
change
s
is:
“Per BAAQMD Rules” (Appendix B, pp. 215, 250
, 278, 307
).
However, the
7 CalEEMod User Guide,
available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/
, p. 2, 9
8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide
.” CAPCOA, November 2017,
available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/
, p. 17.
9 CalEEMod User Guide,
available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/
, p. 2, 9
169
6 DEIR fails to mention a
rchitectural
and
area
coating emission factors or justify the changes whatsoever.
As such, the changes remain unsubstantiated.
These unsubstantiated reductions present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the architectural and area
coating
emission factors to calcu
late the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG”/“VOC”) emissions.
10 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default
architectural
and area
coating
emission factors, the model
may underestimate the Project’s constructio
n
-
related
and
operational
ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance .
Failure to Model Material
Im
port
Regarding the material export and import required for the construction of the Project,
the DEIR states:
“
The pro
posed project would generate approximately 18,200 cubic yards of fill and 6,000 cubic yards of cut material, resulting in approximately 12,200 cubic yards of material for import ” (p.
ES
-
3 ).
However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “
Point Eden Industrial
Development
” model
fails to include any amount of
material
import
(Appendix B, pp. 215, 250
, 279,
308
).
As
such, material
import required for
Project
construction
is
underestimated by
12,200 cubic yards
(“
cy
”)
within the model
.
This
omission
present
s
a
n
issue, as the inclusion of
all required
material
import
within the model is
necessary to calculate emissions produced from material movement, including truck loading
a
nd
unloading, and additional hauling truck trips.
11 Thus, by failing to include
any amount of
material
import
,
the model underestimates the Project’s construction
-
related emissions and should not be relied upon to
determine Project significance.
Failure to
Substantiate Demolition
According
to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, “[h]aul trips are based on the amount of material that is demolished, imported
or exported assuming a truck can handle 16 cubic yards of material.” 12 Therefore,
the air model calculates a default number of hauling trips based upon the amount of demolition material inputted into the model
.
R
eview of the Project’s CalEEMod output file
s demonstrates that the
“
Point Eden Industrial Development
” model
calculated a default value of 63
haul
ing
truck trips (see
excerpt below)
(Appendix B, pp. 221, 249, 284, 314).
10 CalEEMod User Guide,
available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default
-
source/caleemod/01_user
-
39 -
s
-
guide2016
-
3 -
2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4
, p. 35, 40.
11 CalEEMod User’s Guide,
available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/
, p. 3, 26.
12 http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default
-
source/caleemod/02_appendix
-
a2016
-
3 -
2.pdf?sfvrsn=6
, p. 14
170
7 As you can see in the excerpt above, the model calculates 63 hauling truck t rips for demolition.
According to the “User Entered Comments & Non
-
Default Data” table, the justification provided for the amount of demolition inputted into the model is
:
“
building sf measured from google earth
”
(
Appendix B,
pp. 215, 250, 278, 307
).
Howev
er, the DEIR
fails to disclose
the
specific
square footage of facilities to be
demolished or the tons of debris resulting from this demolition .
Specifically, regarding the amount of
demolition required for Project construction, the
DEIR states:
“
The project would commence with demolition and removal of existing structures on the eastern component of the project site associated with the former Oliv er Brothers Salt Work
s
operations
” (p. ES
-
1 –
ES
-
2).
Thus,
we cannot verify that the hauling trip number calculated in the model is the result of the input of the correct amount of demolition. As such, demolition may be underestimated.
This potential under
estimation presents an issue, as t
he amount of demolition material
inputted into
the model
is used by CalEEMod to determine emissions associated with this phase of construction. The three primary operations that generate dust emission
s
during the demolitio
n phase are mechanical or
explosive dismemberment, site removal of debris, and on -
site truck traffic on paved and unpaved
road.
13 Thus, by
failing to substantiate
the demolition of existing structures, emissions associated with fugitive dust, site removal, and exhaust from hauling trucks traveling to and from the site may be
underestimated. As a result, the model
may
underestimate the Project’s construction
-
related
emissions
and should not be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s
air quality impacts.
An
updated EIR should be prepared to substantiate the amount of required demolition and revise the model accordingly, if necessary.
Unsubstantiated Change to
Architectural Coating
Phase Length
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “ Point Eden Industrial Development
” model
includes a manual reduction to
the architectural coating
phase length (see excerpt below) (App
endix B,
pp. 215, 250
, 279, 308
).
13 CalEEMod User Guide, Appendix A, p. 11,
available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/
171
8 As a result,
the model includes a construction schedule as follows (Appendix B, pp. 219, 247, 282, 312):
As you can see in the excerpt above, the architectural coating phase length was increased by 475
%, from
the d
efault value of 20 to 115 days. As
previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.
14 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non
-
Default
Data” table, the justification provided for
this
change is:
“
A
rchitectural coating updated to be half way
through building construction for standard practices
” (Appendix B, pp. 215, 250, 278, 307
).
Furthermore,
regarding the Project’s anticipated construction schedule, the DEIR states:
“
Estimated
construction duration of the proposed project would be 12 to 18 months, tentatively beginning in 2021
” (p. ES
-
3).
However, while the
DEIR
indicates the expected construction duration
,
the DEIR
fails to mention or
justify the
individual architectural coatin
g phase length
whatsoever.
Furthermore, the justification
provided in the “User Entered Comments & Non
-
Default Data” table fails to provide a source to support its claim that the revised architectural coating phase length represents “standard practices.” A
s such, we
cannot verify the change
.
This
unsubstantiated change
presents an issue, as it
improperly spread
s
out construction emissions over
a longer period
of time
for the architectural coating phase, but not other phases.
A
ccording to the
CalEEMod User’s
Guide, each construction phase is associated with different emissions activities (see excerpt below).
15 14
CalEEMod User Guide,
available at:
http://www.caleemod.com/
, p. 2, 9
15 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017,
available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default
-
source/caleemod/01_user
-
39 -
s
-
guide2016
-
3 -
2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4
, p. 31.
172
9 As such, by disproportionately altering
the architectural coating
phase length without proper
justification, the model
’s
calculations are altered and underestimate emissions. Thus, by including an
unsubstantiated change to the
default architectural coating
phase length, the model may underestimate
the Project’s construc
tion
-
related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact
In an effort to
more accurately estimate
the
Project’s
construction
-
related
emissions, we prepar
ed
an
updated CalEEMod model, using the Project
-
specific information provided by the
DEIR
.
In our updated
model,
we
accounted for potential refrigeration requirements;
omitted the unsubstantiated changes
to
the energy intensity factors, architectural and a
rea coating emission factors, and architectural coating phse length; and included the total amount of required material import. We did not revise the amount of demolition inputted into the model; however, as previously stated, an updated EIR should be prep
ared to substantiate the amount of required demolition and revise the model accordingly, if necessary.
Our updated analysis estimates that the Project’s construction -
related
ROG
emissions
would
exceed the
applicable
daily maximum
BAAQMD
threshold of
54 pounds per day (“lbs/day”)
(see table below)
.
16 Model
ROG
DEIR Construction
11.7 SWAPE Construction
63.6 % Increase
444%
BAAQMD Regional Threshold (lbs/day)
54 Threshold Exceeded?
Yes
As you can see in the excerpt above, the Project’s
construction
-
related
VOC
emissions, as estimated by
SWAPE, increase by approximately
444
%
and exceed the applicable
BAAQMD
significance threshold.
16 “California Environmental Quality Act Air Qual
ity Guidelines.” BAAQMD, May 2017,
available at
:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning
-
and
-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017
-
p
df.pdf?la=en
, p.
2 -
2, Table 2
-
1. 173
10 Thus, our model demonstrates that the Project would result in a potentially significant air quality impact th
at was not previously identified or addressed in the
DEIR
.
As a result,
an
updated
EIR should be
prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.
Greenhouse Gas
Failure t
o Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The DEIR concludes that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 447.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO 2 e/year”), which would not exceed the
BAAQMD b
right
-
line threshold of 660 MT CO
2 e/year (p. 1
-
7).
However, the DEIR’s GHG analysis, as well
as the subsequent
less
-
than
-
significant
impact conclusion, is incorrect for
two
reasons.
(1)
The DEIR’s
quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and
unsubstantiated air model;
and
(2)
SWAPE
’s updated
model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact.
1)
Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions
As
previously stated
,
DEIR
estimates that the Project would generate net annual
GHG
emiss
ions of
447.6
MT CO
2 e/year
(p. 1
-
7)
.
However, the
DEIR’s
quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the
AQ & GHG
Worksheets as Appendix B t
o the
DEIR
, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the
DEIR
. As a result, the model underestimates the
Project’s emissions, and the
DEIR’s
quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to de termine
Project significance. An
updated
EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment.
2)
Updated Analysis Indicates a Potentially Sig
nificant GHG Impact
As previously stated,
we prepared
an
updated CalEEMod model
,
using the Project
-
specific information
provided by the
DEIR, i
n an effort to
more accurately estimate
Project
emissions.
When applying the
BAAQMD bright
-
line threshold of 660
MT CO
2 e/year
,
SWAPE’s updated
modeling demonstrate
s
a
potentially
significant GHG impact not previously identified or mitigated by the DEIR
. The updated
CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE with Project
-
specific information
, disclose the Project’s
mitigated emissions, which include approximately
620
MT
CO
2 e of total construction emissions (sum of
202
1 and 202
2) and approximately
1,301
MT CO
2 e/year of net annual operational emissions (sum of
area
-
, energy
-
,
mobile
-
,
water
-
, a
nd
waste
-
related emissions).
When amortizing the Project’s
construction
-
related GHG emissions over a period of 30 years and summing them with the Project’s operational GHG emissions, we estimate net annual GHG emissions of 1,322
MT CO
2 e/year
(see table
bel
ow).
174
11 SWAPE Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Phase
Proposed Project (MT CO
2 e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years)
20.68 Area
0.01 Energy
926.93
Mobile
239.92
Waste
55.22 Water
79.35 Net Annual GHG Emissions
1,322
Threshold
660
Exceed?
Yes
As the table above demonstrates,
the Project’s
net annual
GHG emissions
, as estimated by SWAPE,
exceed the
BAAQMD bright
-
line threshold of 660 MT CO
2 e/year
,
thus
demonstrating a potentially
significant impact not previously
mitigated by the DEIR
.
As a result
, a
n updated EIR
should be prepared
for the Project
and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly .
Design Features Should Be Included as
Mitigation Measures
Our analysis de
monstrates that the Project
would result in a potentially significant
GHG
impact that
should be mitigated further. We recommend that the DEIR implement all regulatory compliance
measures
, such as compliance with Title 24
,
CALGreen standards
, and BAAQMD rul
es aimed at limiting
VOC contents
,
as formal mitigation measures. As a result,
we
could
guarantee that the
se
measures
would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site .
Including formal mitigation
measures by
properly committing to their im
plementation
would result in verifiable
emissions
reductions that may help reduce emissions to less
-
than
-
significant levels.
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 b een 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 con tain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or
otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.
Sincerely,
175
12 Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
Attachment A
:
SWAPE Project
CalEEMod Modeling
Attachment
B
:
Paul Rosenfeld CV
Attachment
C
:
Matt Hagemann CV
176
Project Characteristics - See SWA{E comment regarding intensity factors Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding land use size and type.
Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding construction phase length.
Grading - See SWAPE comment regarding material import.
Demolition - Consistent with DEIR's model.
Architectural Coating - See SWAPE comment regarding architectural and area coating emission factors.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses
Size
Metric
Lot Acreage
Floor Surface Area
Population
General Office Building
2.79 1000sqft
0.06 2,785.00
0 Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail
114.06
1000sqft
2.62 114,059.00
0 Parking Lot
288.00
Space
2.59 115,200.00
0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s)
Precipitation Freq (Days)
2.2 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022
Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35
0.029
CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.006
N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Point Eden Industrial Development
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 5/17/2021 2:30 PM