SITE VISIT
I visited the proposed project site 15:42 to 17:52 hours on 21 February 2022. After having been disked last year, the site was covered by ruderal grassland species (Photos 1 and 2). Eucalyptus and various other trees bordered the site. When I surveyed the site for the site’s periphery, the sky was clear and breezy, and temperatures dropped from 59° F to 53° F. I used binoculars to scan for wildlife. 2 Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site from the north toward the southeast (top), and southwest (bottom), 21 February 2022.
Over 2 hours and 10 minutes, I detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at the project site, including 5 special-status species (Table 1). Several of the trees along the site’s perimeter were of sufficient stature to support raptor nests (Photo 2), including nests of Swainson’s hawk (I could not have seen Swainson’s hawks because at this time of year they were at their winter migration destination in Mexico). A pair of red-tailed hawks courted, with one bowing its head to the other while perched on eucalyptus. I saw and photographed a Cooper’s hawk just offsite to the west, where it aggressively hunted ground-foraging birds (Photo 3). I saw an American kestrel and mourning doves (Photos 4 and 5), and Lawrence’s goldfinches and yellow-rumped warblers (Photos 6 and 7), among other species. An Anna’s hummingbird harassed the breeding pair of red-tailed hawks before chasing after an American kestrel, itself having just dove on the pair of red-tailed hawks. Out on the grassland were many American pipits, house 3 finches and mourning doves, along with western meadowlarks. I also saw a white-tailed kite, but it was flying into town and away from the site after sunset, so I could not be certain it actually used the site. If it did not forage on site, it did so nearby. Birds used the site and its periphery the entire time I was there.
Table 1. Wildlife species I observed on site on 21 February 2022.
Species Scientific name Status1 Note
Sierran treefrog Pseudacris sierra edge
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Many
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Great blue heron Ardea herodius Flyover
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP South of site Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP adjacent
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
breeding pair calling and
courting (head-bowing)
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP hunted on site
Anna's hummingbird Calypte anna Harassed raptors
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
American pipit Anthus rubescens
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata adjacent
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys adjacent
Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus flock flyover
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Flyover
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria adjacent
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Adjacent
House cat Felis catus Non-native Entered site from homes California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi burrows along edge 1 BCC = US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFG Code 3511), BOP = California Fish and Game Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey), and TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
Although the earlier disking of the site undoubtedly suppressed use of the site by wildlife, its suppression was less than thorough. So long as the soil lives, fossorial mammals and their burrows persist and the soil’s seed bank sprout new growth of grassland species. The site is inherently rich in wildlife species, and it offers wildlife opportunities for forage, refugia, and breeding that are otherwise rapidly disappearing from the region.
4 Photo 3. Cooper’s hawk hunting birds just off the west end of the project site, 21 February 2022.
5 Photos 4 and 5. American kestrel (top) and mourning dove (bottom) at the project site, 21 February 2022.
S.trnw11 Smallw0o!J
EJlali\t.u :iuw.1.hn,u~
6 Photos 6 and 7. Lawrence’s goldfinch (left) and yellow-rumped warbler (right) at the project site, 21 February 2022.
CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze project impacts. Methods to achieve this first step typically include surveys of the site for biological resources and reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of this project, these essential steps remain grossly incomplete. Herein I provide some characterization of the wildlife community as a component of the current environmental setting, including the identification of special-status species likely to use the site at one time or another.
A biologist from Precision Civil Engineering performed a reconnaissance-level survey of the site of the proposed project on 8 February 2022 in an effort “to search for special status species, and to determine the potential presence of suitable habitat for these species.” Weather and temperature were reported, but not the most important methodological elements of the survey, which were time of day when the survey began and how long the biologist surveyed the site. These unreported elements of the survey were essential for interpretation of the reported findings.
The biologist with Precision Civil Engineering reportedly detected 5 species of vertebrate wildlife, including killdeer, red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, mourning dove, and American crow. However, the report also included detection of California ground 7 squirrel, which brings the count of wildlife species to 6. More importantly, two weeks before I surveyed the site from the site’s periphery, the biologist from Precision Civil Engineering detected only 24% of the species I did. In my experience, the most likely reason(s) for the discrepancy in survey outcomes was that the consulting biologist visited the site very briefly or during a time of day least likely to detect wildlife.
Considering that I detected 6 species – the same number that was detected by the consulting biologist – within 6 minutes of the start of my survey, time of day was likely a factor that suppressed the consulting biologist’s findings.
Even with the addition of my survey outcome to that of Precision Civil Engineering, that portion of the current environmental setting composed of wildlife remains incompletely characterized. My detections of 26 species of vertebrate wildlife need to be interpreted within the context of the survey effort. As would be the case for any reconnaissance-level survey, the time I could commit to my survey was grossly short of the time needed to inventory all of the species that use the site. Observers are imperfect at detecting all species that occur within their surveyed space, and not all of the species that would occur in the surveyed space would occur there during the period of the observer’s survey. One should not expect that the biologist who just completed a reconnaissancelevel survey actually detected more than a fraction of the species that use the site, and neither should a biologist claim to have detected more than a fraction of the species composing the wildlife community.
A reconnaissance-level survey can be useful for confirming presence of the species that were detected, but it can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not detected. One can model the pattern in species detections during a survey as a means to estimate the number of species that used the site but were undetected during the survey. To support such a modeling effort, the observer needs to record the times into the survey when each species was first detected. The cumulative number of species’ detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). If survey time is represented by minutes into the survey, as it is in Figure 1, then minutes into the survey can also represent person-minutes. Personminutes implies that >1 person can simultaneously survey a site, which is true, thereby allowing for the model to predict survey outcomes with more observers contributing more survey-minutes during the same survey period. This allowance can constrain model predictions to the environmental conditions experienced during the time period of the survey, thereby minimizing risk of model over-extension. In the case of my survey, the pattern in the data (Figure 1) predicts that had I more biologists to commit to my survey, we would have detected 56 species of vertebrate wildlife on the evening of 21 February 2022. This modeling approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, but it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat. 8 Figure 1. Actual and
predicted relationships
between the number of
vertebrate wildlife species
detected and the elapsed
survey time based on my
visual-scan survey on 21
February 2022. Note that
the relationship would
differ if the survey was
based on another method
or during another season.
Also note that the
cumulative number of
vertebrate species across
all methods, times of day,
and seasons would
increase substantially.
I could have detected many more species than predicted had I also performed surveys at night to detect nocturnal and crepuscular species with appropriate methods and technology, or and conducting surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance. Nevertheless, based on the substantial evidence gathered during my reconnaissance-level survey, I conclude that the site is richer in wildlife than the 26 species documented there so far between the surveys of Precision Civil Engineering and my own, but also that the environmental setting of the project remains insufficiently characterized as foundation for analysis of impacts to special-status species. There is no question that a larger survey effort would result in a longer list of species documented to use the project site, thereby improving our understanding of the current environmental setting. A more realistic representation of species richness at the site could be obtained by simply repeating visual-scan surveys on various dates through the year.
As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Minutes into survey
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Y
Actual count of species
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.98, loss = 22.9
1 =-----------
0.018009+1.01684(X +1)-0.76659
0 9
of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ =
1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected.
The coefficients of determination, r
2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of
0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data. I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I detected 10 species over the first 2.17 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (2.17 hours to match the number of hours I surveyed at the project site), which composed 17.5 % of the total predicted species I would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 26 species I detected after my 2.17 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 17.5% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, I would likely detect 26
0.175 ⁄ = 149 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.
Again, however, my prediction of 149 species of vertebrate wildlife is derived from visual-scan surveys during the daytime, and would not detect nocturnal mammals. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. A reconnaissance-level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. Without careful interpretation, the survey 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
-0-
J;;)-
0 0
---
10 outcome of Precision Civil Engineering should not serve as the foundation for characterizing baseline conditions, because there were truly many more species that used the site at the time of the survey than were detected by Precision Civil Engineering.
Additionally, the likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by the fact that specialstatus species tend to be rarer and thus less detectable than common species. Specialstatus 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 3). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species, which are inclusive of listed species. Also note that I include California Fully Protected species and federal Candidate species as “listed” species.) Figure 3. Probability
of detecting ≥1
Candidate, Threatened
or Endangered Species
of wildlife listed under
California or federal
Endangered Species
Acts, based on survey
outcomes logitregressed on the
number of wildlife
species I detected during
152 site visits in
California. The vertical
line represents the
number of species I
detected.
As demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort. Greater survey effort also increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected (which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species).
Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys I completed at sites of proposed projects, my survey effort at the project site carried an 28% chance of detecting a listed species, whereas the survey effort of Precision Civil Engineering carried a 10% chance. Precision Civil Engineering did not detect a listed species, but I detected a California Fully Protected white-tailed kite heading away from the project site after sunset. Additional Number of species detected
Probability of detecting Fully Protected,
Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.0 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.8 1.0
95% CI
152 site visits
e-2.621955+0.068131N
P= 1 + e-2.621955+0.068131N
00 -~-/:::: _-
I
I
I
I
...I,="'-
' I
I
~ ....1,=--
1 I
0 0
11 listed species likely use the site, but documenting their use would take more survey effort to achieve a reasonable likelihood of detecting them. No reconnaissance-level survey is capable of detecting enough of the wildlife species that occur at a site to realistically characterize the site’s wildlife community. This context bears on my comments to follow regarding potential project impacts to biological resources.
As I noted earlier, the other first step toward characterization of the wildlife community as part of the current environmental setting is to review literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species around the site. In support of the IS/MND, Precision Civil Engineering reviewed U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) and the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to identify species for which to determine occurrence likelihoods.
Had eBird and iNaturalist also been reviewed, determinations of occurrence likelihood would have been made for many additional species (Table 2). In my assessment based on data base reviews and my site visit, 74 special-status species of wildlife potentially use the site at one time or another. Of these, 5 (6.8%) were confirmed on or next to the site by my visit, 9 (12%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 15 (20%) within 1.5 and 3 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 35 (47%) within 30 to 50 miles (‘In region’). The site holds much more potential for supporting special-status species of wildlife than has been determined by City of Madera.
Furthermore, City of Madera (2022) misapplied CNDDB to screen out special-status species not reported within 5 miles of the site. Whereas CNDDB can be helpful for confirming occurrences of special-status species where they have been reported, it cannot be relied upon for determining absences of species. Absence determinations can only be defended by the outcomes of protocol-level detection surveys. This is because CNDDB relies on volunteer reporting, and it is limited in its spatial coverage by the access of biologists to private properties. The findings reported to CNDDB are not from any sort of randomized or systematic sampling across California, nor does CNDDB collect reports of negative findings. Many survey findings are not reported to CNDDB because consulting biologists signed non-disclosure agreements with developers. In the absence of scientific sampling, absence determinations based on CNDDB reporting are vulnerable to multiple biases.
Another limitation of CNDDB is its focus on special-status species. Most wildlife species in California are not reported to CNDDB, because CNDDB is uninterested in them and Scientific Collecting Permits do not require their reporting. Species recently assigned special status will be under-represented in CNDDB. The limitations of CNDDB are wellknown, and summarized by CDFW in a warning presented on its CNDDB web site, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/About: “We work very hard to keep the CNDDB and the Spotted Owl Database as current and up-to-date as possible given our capabilities and resources. However, we cannot and do not portray the CNDDB as an exhaustive and comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide. Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an important obligation of our customers. Likewise, your contribution of data to the CNDDB is equally important to the maintenance of the CNDDB. ...” 12 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species at the project site, based on records of sightings in eBird and iNaturalist and on my site visit.
Species Scientific name Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/MND Data bases,
site visits
Aleutian cackling goose Branta hutchinsonii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 In region
American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 In region Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Greater sandhill crane Grus c. canadensis CT, CFP, SSC3 In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, WL In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC In region
Marbled godwit Limosa fedua BCC In region
Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP In region
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP In region Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis BCC, WL, BOP In region
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni BCC, CT Unlikely Very close Rough-legged hawk Buteo regalis BOP In region
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi WL, BOP On site
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC3, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Adjacent
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus BCC, WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BCC, CFP, BOP Very close 13 Species Scientific name Status
1 Occurrence likelihood
IS/MNDData bases,
site visits
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Unlikely In region Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Nearby
Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SSC3, BOP In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP In region
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Willow flycatcher Epidomax trailii CE, BCC Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 In region Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Horned lark Eremophila alpestris WL Very close
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Nearby
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC In region
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC Very close
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia BCC, SSC2 Nearby
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis BCC, SSC2 In region Modesto song sparrow Melospiza melodia SSC3 Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC In region Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Adjacent
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG HIn region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Plecotus t. townsendii SSC, WBWG HIn range 14 Species Scientific name Status1
Occurrence likelihood
IS/MND Data bases,
site visits
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG H In range Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In range
Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range
Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In range
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG LM In range
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG LM Unlikely In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
Western spadefoot Speas hmmondii SSC Unlikely In region Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata SSC In region
1 Listed as FT or FE = federally Threatened or Endangered, BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, BCC = US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird Species of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California Threatened or Endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (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), WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with low, medium and high conservation priorities.
15 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Nearly the entirety of the IS/MND’s analysis of potential impacts to wildlife consists of the following: “The Project site and surrounding properties have historically been designated and operated as agricultural land. The site is currently vacant and undeveloped and has been highly disturbed as a result of periodic discing and agricultural activity.” However, in the face of rapidly diminishing habitat, wildlife must make use of whatever opportunities remain available to them. Environmental conditions at the site might indeed be less than ideal for many of the species of wildlife that made use of the site for thousands of years prior to its conversion to agricultural use, but as my site visit proved, the City’s analysis is in error. Many species of wildlife continue to use the site. Below I address several types of project impacts to wildlife that need to be analyzed in an EIR.
HABITAT LOSS
The IS/MND does not address potential impacts of habitat loss to breeding birds.
Habitat loss has been recognized as the most likely leading cause of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. For example, a complex of grassland, wetland, and woodland at one study site had a total bird nesting density of 32.8 nests per acre (Young 1948). In another study on a similar complex of vegetation cover, the average annual nest density was 35.8 nests per acre (Yahner 1982). These densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre. Given that the project site was occupied by many grassland birds when I visited it, but also considering that it lacks the wetland elements of the study sites of Young (1048) and Yahner (1982), I assume the nest density of the site is about a fourth of that documented by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982). An average nest density of 34.3 multiplied against 0.25 and the project’s
30.16 acres would estimate a capacity of 259 bird nests annually.
The loss of 259 nest sites of birds would qualify as a significant project impact that has not been addressed in the IS/MND. But the impact does not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as the site is graded in preparation for impervious surfaces. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 751 fledglings per year. After 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 85,460 birds {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)}. The project’s denial to California of 855 birds per year is not been analyzed as a potential impact in the IS/MND, nor does the IS/MND provide any compensatory mitigation for this impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts to wildlife caused by habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.
16 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
The IS/MND focuses its analysis on whether the site occurs within a wildlife movement corridor. The implied premise is that only disruption of the function of a wildlife movement corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. This premise, however, represents a false CEQA standard, and is therefore inappropriate to the analysis. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. The project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts to wildlife caused by the project’s interference with wildlife movement in the region.
WILDLIFE MORTALITY CAUSED BY THE FENCE
The project would be surrounded by a 6-foot-tall chain-link fence. Such fences are not without impacts to wildlife. Fences interfere with wildlife movement. Fences also entangle wildlife (Photo 8) and are barriers into which volant animals collide with lethal force. Recent fatality monitoring along fences of utility-scale solar projects in California provides the basis for predicting avian mortality that would be caused by the project’s fence. Based on a weighted mean 14.435 (95% CI: 10.880–20.339) birds/km/year along fences of California’s solar projects, the project’s approximately 1.9-km-long fence would likely kill 27.4 (95% CI: 20.7–38.7) birds per year. After 100 years of this level of mortality, the project’s fencing would have killed 2,740 (95% CI: 2,070–3,870) birds.
Because the IS/MND does not even raise the issue of wildlife impacts caused by the fence, my predicted mortality would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.
The annual wildlife death toll caused by the fence would persist for as long as the fence remains. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts to wildlife caused by proposed security fence. 17 Photo 8. A great-horned owl died after
becoming entangled on the razor wire
placed on top of this cyclone fence
surrounding a substation in Alameda
County. Photo by Joanne Mount.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
10-15 trucks per day, but this was misleading. The Appendix on air quality explains that this value applies only to initial startup in Phase I. At full build-out, it predicts 70 truck trips per day and 998.5 passenger car trips per day for a total 1,068.5 vehicle trips per day. Assumed 50 miles per truck trip. Annual VMT = 2,915,196 The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic.
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 9-12). Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right 18 next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors were similar to those for carcass persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011).
Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al. 2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
Photo 9. 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 10. Great-tailed grackle walks onto a
rural road in Imperial County, 4 February
2022.
19 Photo 11. A mourning dove killed by
vehicle traffic on a California road.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June
2020.
Photo 12. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on 10
November 2018.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),
52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California redlegged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species).
During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the IS/MND’s prediction of 2,915,196 annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to the project, predicts 1,597 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 79,850 wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass removals from the roadway, 20 thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts.
Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The IS/MND adopts a flawed approach to analysis of cumulative impacts. The IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts of incomplete mitigation. If this was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. The IS/MND’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. Given that North America has lost nearly a third of its birds over the past half century (Rosenberg et al. 2019), and given that simple calculations reveal the project’s impacts would deny Californians of many birds, an appropriate cumulative effects analysis is warranted. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze cumulative effects.
MITIGATION MEASURES
MM BIO-1.1 Preconstruction survey for burrowing owls
Surveys for burrowing owls should be performed in accordance to the survey guidelines for burrowing owls (CDFW 2012). Ground squirrels occur at the site. Burrowing owls rely on ground squirrels for construction of their nest sites and for the mutual predator alarm-calling provided by both the squirrels and the owls. To meet the standards of these guidelines, a series of breeding-season detection surveys are needed prior to preconstruction take-avoidance surveys. The IS/MND skips this important step of performing detection surveys. The mitigation proposed in the IS/MND would be inconsistent with the CDFW (2012) guidelines.
MM BIO-1.2 Preconstruction survey for breeding birds
The IS/MND proposes preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys to minimize impacts to breeding birds. Whereas I agree that preconstruction surveys would be appropriate, it must be understood by decision-makers and the public that such surveys typically detect small fractions of the animals targeted. Nesting birds are highly adept at concealment to avoid predation. Over such a large area, the notion that more than a few animals would be detected would be fantasy. Furthermore, preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys ultimately fail to prevent the impacts of habitat loss, resulting in the loss of productive capacity of the site.
21 Preconstruction surveys should not be performed without first having performed detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are no substitute for detection surveys.
Species detection surveys are needed to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and (4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation.
Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for most special-status species. Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts.
MM BIO-1.1 Preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawks
The project would eliminate 30.16 acres of Swainson’s hawk habitat. The loss of this much habitat would be substantial for Swainson’s hawk. A greater commitment to mitigation is warranted. Detection surveys should precede preconstruction surveys so that the public and decision-makers understand the magnitude of project impacts to Swainson’s hawk.
RECOMMENDED MEASURES
The IS/MND proposes only preconstruction surveys, and no compensatory mitigation for project impacts such as habitat loss. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to formulate appropriate measures to mitigate project impacts to wildlife. Below are few suggestions of measures that ought to be considered in an EIR.
Detection Surveys: Protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented for special-status species, and most especially for burrowing owl and Swainson’s hawk.
Construction Timing: No construction activities should take place during the avian nesting season of 1 February through 31 August.
Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. An equal area of open space should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible.
Fence Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the project’s security fence.
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.
Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
22 Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles.
Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
REFERENCES CITED
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.
City of Madera. 2022. Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse Site Plan Review (SPR 2021-41) Administrative Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Prepared by Precision Civil Engineering. Madera, 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.
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.
Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.
Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).
Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.
Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.
23 Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.
Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.
Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.
Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.
Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
668 professional publications, including:
88 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
554 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
87 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.
Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.
Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); doi:10.3390/d12030098.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 – Smallwood CV 7
71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.
Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Siting to Minimize Raptor Collisions: an example from the Repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.
Smallwood CV 8
Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.
Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered Wind Turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird Mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.
Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524.
Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.
Smallwood CV 9
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.
Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:
Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.
Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J.
Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.
Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.
Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.
Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agroecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355.
Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.
Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.
Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.
Smallwood CV 10
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.
Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.
Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.
Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329.
Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958.
Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847.
Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.
Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.
Smallwood CV 11
Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.
Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594.
Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64.
Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. Whitetailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.
Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.
Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.
Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259.
Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.
Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.
Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67.
Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.
Biological Conservation 62:149-159.
Smallwood CV 12
Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis.
Peer-reviewed Reports
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500- 2016-066
Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.
Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No.
CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-500-2008-080/CEC-500-2008-080.PDF
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065 Smallwood CV 13
Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted but not published. Sacramento, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.altamontsrcarchive.org/alt_doc/cec_final_report_08_11_04.pdf Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp.
Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp.
Non-Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.
Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus.
Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California.
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway.
Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26.
Smallwood CV 14
Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay.
Environmental Conservation 30:210-211.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.
Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.
Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects.
Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075.
Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075.
EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.
Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural Smallwood CV 15
sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA.
Taipei, Taiwan.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa.
California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.
Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County)
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in Smallwood CV 16
former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). SRC document P238, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P232, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. SRC document P231, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. SRC document P229, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P228, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).
Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood CV 17
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. SRC document P168, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P171, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P161, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. SRC document P153, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. SRC document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009.
Alameda County SRC document P-145.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood CV 18
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. SRC document P107, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. SRC document P106, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. SRC document P103, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. SRC document P101, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010.
Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collisionrelated mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp.
Smallwood CV 19
Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s recommended four-month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23.
Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60.
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44.
Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43.
Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004.
SRC Document P26.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]).
April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget.
Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22.
Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007.
Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20.
Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16.
Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15.
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement.
Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5.
Smallwood CV 20
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization.
Reports to Clients
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client.
Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch and Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area.
Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir.
Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District.
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological Diversity. 28 pp
Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts.
Smallwood CV 21
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR.
Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore.
Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one.
Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.
Smallwood CV 22
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011.
Report to Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood CV 23
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009.
Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellowbilled Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Smallwood CV 24
Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, [email protected] . 34 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Smallwood CV 25
Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp.
Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p.
Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp.
Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.
Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site
30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp.
Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp.
Smallwood CV 26
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment to support an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial re-assessment of an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA.
Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates.
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the JeffersonMartin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp.
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.
Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map.
Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures.
Smallwood CV 27
Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp.
Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model.
Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.
Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates.
Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.
Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.
Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal.
Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment Smallwood CV 28
of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp.
Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp.
Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp.
Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC.
Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California mountain lion track count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed).
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530.
Smallwood CV 29
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia.
Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and their management under the Martell SYP.
Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp.
EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.
Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide Energy Research Group, University of California.
Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp.
Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento.
Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits.
Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA.
Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis.
Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages)
I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:
Replies on UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2021; 13); 14 Charles Hill Circle Design Review (2021; 11);
SDG Commerce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26); Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project DSEIR (2021; 98); Clawiter Road Industrial Project IS/MND, Hayward (2021; 18); Garnet Energy Center Stipulations, New York (2020);
Heritage Wind Energy Project, New York (2020: 71);
Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project IS/MND, Martinez (2020; 11); Smallwood CV 30
Cambria Hotel Project Staff Report, Dublin (2020; 19); Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20); Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23); Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26); Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19); Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22); Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21); Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24); Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27); 2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4); 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);
Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);
11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17); Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);
Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64); Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12); Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28); Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted; Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);
3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19); Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8); 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25); Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4); 2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8); Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3); Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16); Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5); Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24);
AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);
Replies to responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse (2020; 15); Clover Project MND, Petaluma (2020; 27);
Ruby Street Apartments Project Env. Checklist, Hayward (2020; 20); Replies to responses on 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 5); 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 9);
Steeno Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);
UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2020; 24); North Pointe Business Center MND, Fresno (2020; 14);
Casmalia and Linden Warehouse IS, Fontana (2020; 15); Rubidoux Commerce Center Project IS/MND, Jurupa Valley (2020; 27); Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center MND, Menifee (2020; 23); First Industrial Logistics Center II, Moreno Valley IS/MND (2020; 23); GLP Store Warehouse Project Staff Report (2020; 15);
Replies on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 29); 2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34); Smallwood CV 31
Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30); Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16); Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14); Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);
Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17); 1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28); 1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:
Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46); Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);
Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);
Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19); Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19); Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24); Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18); The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19); Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);
Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);
27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);
2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11); Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13); Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18); East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22); Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);
555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);
Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27); 1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19); Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27); Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26);
Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);
Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);
Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13); Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22); Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9); Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12); ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9); Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14); Replies to responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19); PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13);
Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);
Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19) World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19); Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12); West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);
Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11); Smallwood CV 32
Replies to responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10); Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22); Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26); Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34); 1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);
Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14); SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21); PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23); Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);
Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);
Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14); Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7); Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36); We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);
Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7); Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9); Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35); Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);
Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21); The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);
Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9); Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22); North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30); South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);
Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44); Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15); Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);
LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);
Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);
South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);
CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);
2nd replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11); Replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7); Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12); Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21); Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22); Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);
Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21); 2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12); Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);
City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);
Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);
Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);
IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);
Smallwood CV 33
Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);
Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12); 2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30); At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);
Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10); Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);
Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57); 750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14); Replies to responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12); San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);
CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);
Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18); Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);
North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11); Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);
Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23); Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18); Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13); CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23); Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24); Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15); 800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18); 2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22); Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15); Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21); Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15); Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9); Replies to responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13); Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27); Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48); Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);
The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);
Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin County (2017; 5);
Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4); Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5); San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22); Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12); Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12); MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12); PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45); Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);
Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5); Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16); Smallwood CV 34
Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13); Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);
Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5); Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);
Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14); Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12); CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12); Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9); City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7); Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49); Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25); Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15); Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016); Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6); Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5); Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12); Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);
Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9); Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18); Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27); Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14); Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41); Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38); Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31); Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6); Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10); White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9); Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9); Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6); Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Rosamond (2015; 28); Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR, Fontana (2015, 9); Columbia Business Center MND, Riverside (2015; 8);
West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR, Fontana (2015, 10); Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28); Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10); World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR, Moreno Valley (2015, 12); Elkhorn Valley Wind Power Project Impacts, Oregon (2015; 143); Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS, Sacramento (2014, 21); Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);
Replies on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15); Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR, Mojave (2014, 12); Palen Solar Electric Generating System FSA (CEC), Blythe (2014, 20); Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9); Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills impacts + Addendum, Wyoming (2014; 105); Smallwood CV 35
Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32); Replies on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15); Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18); Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3); Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23); Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16); Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9); West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18); Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);
Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49); Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19); Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12); Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31); Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11); Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);
Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16); Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13); Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13); Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6); Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10); Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);
Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);
Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10); Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);
FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9); Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6); Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8); Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23); Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; ); Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9); Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10); Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp); Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8); North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62); Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects Ism Lancaster (2012; 8); J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review, Orinda (2012; 14); Replies on Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8);
Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9); Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS, near Joshua Tree (2012; 15); Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR, El Centro (2012; 16); Ocotillo Sol Project EIS, Imperial Valley (2012; 4);
Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Kern County (2012; 5); Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program IS/MND (2012; 11); Smallwood CV 36
Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16); City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28); Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9); Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4); Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9); Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13); Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16); Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7); Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6); Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41); Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17); St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);
Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20); Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12); Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10); Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009; 9);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);
Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);
Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9); Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3);
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142); Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2); Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3); The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9);
The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11);
Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);
SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);
Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24); Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66); Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20); Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33); Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15); Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);
Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37); Replies to responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5); Smallwood CV 37
North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);
Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies); Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18); Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15); Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);
Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);
Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);
Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21); Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10); Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41); UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23); Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18); Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6); Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23); Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9); Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7); Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3); UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);
Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22); Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);
California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20); Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13); UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001; 26);
Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);
Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5); Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10); Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000); US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4); California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11);
Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);
Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9). California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999); Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);
Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation); Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8); Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998); Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28); Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998); Smallwood CV 38
San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10); Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:
Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12); Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);
Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);
Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.); NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);
Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);
Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.); Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.); Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.); Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000); Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);
State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997); Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);
Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);
NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45):
11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);
Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997).
Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:
Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society-- Western Section (2001);
Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);
Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000); Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);
Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No.
Smallwood CV 39
103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
Posters at Professional Meetings
Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.
Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.
Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas.
Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.
Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.
Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society.
Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars
Dog detections of bat and bird fatalities at wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area.
East Bay Regional Park District 2019 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 13 November 2019.
Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.
Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999- Smallwood CV 40
2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017.
Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017.
Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015.
From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California.
The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015.
Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, 8 July 2015.
Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015.
Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013.
Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012.
Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012.
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011
Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011.
Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Smallwood CV 41
Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.
Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010.
Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities.
California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010.
Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006.
Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006.
Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006.
Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006.
Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.
Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.
American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006.
Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005.
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005.
Smallwood CV 42
Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.
Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005.
Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004.
Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004.
Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.
Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004.
Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004.
The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004.
Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003.
Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.
California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000.
Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass.
National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000.
Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Smallwood CV 43
Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999.
Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999.
Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999.
A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999.
Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998.
“No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.
In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997.
Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997.
Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.
Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996.
Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995.
Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995.
Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994.
Smallwood CV 44
Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994.
Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993.
Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993.
Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993.
Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993.
Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993.
Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993.
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C.
Davis, August 6, 1993.
Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis.
May 1993.
Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993.
Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990.
Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990.
Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.
A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986.
The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985.
Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Smallwood CV 45
Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California.
Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.
Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.
Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011. Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011.
Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.
Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999. Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.
Printed Mass Media
Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. OpEd to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California.
Smallwood CV 46
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise.
Radio/Television
PBS News Hour,
FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011.
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009;
KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008;
KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour.
October, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997.
Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review) Journal Journal
American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research
Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos
Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist
Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology
Smallwood CV 47
Journal Journal
Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist
Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans.
Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS
Ecology Tropical Ecology
Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J
Biological Control The Condor
Committees
• Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento Smallwood CV 48
Other Professional Activities or Products
Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified.
Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects.
Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities.
Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas.
Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm.
Memberships in Professional Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foundation
Honors and Awards
Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987
J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978
CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982
National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Community Activities
District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007
Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07
Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004
Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002
Davis Visioning Group member
Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates Smallwood CV 49
Representative Clients/Funders
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker EDF Renewables
Blum Collins, LLP National Renewable Energy Lab
Eric K. Gillespie Professional Corporation Altamont Winds LLC Law Offices of Berger & Montague Salka Energy
Lozeau | Drury LLP Comstocks Business (magazine)
Law Offices of Roy Haber BioResource Consultants
Law Offices of Edward MacDonald Tierra Data
Law Office of John Gabrielli Black and Veatch
Law Office of Bill Kopper Terry Preston, Wildlife Ecology Research Center Law Office of Donald B. Mooney EcoStat, Inc.
Law Office of Veneruso & Moncharsh US Navy
Law Office of Steven Thompson US Department of Agriculture Law Office of Brian Gaffney US Forest Service
California Wildlife Federation US Fish & Wildlife Service Defenders of Wildlife US Department of Justice
Sierra Club California Energy Commission
National Endangered Species Network California Office of the Attorney General Spirit of the Sage Council California Department of Fish & Wildlife The Humane Society California Department of Transportation Hagens Berman LLP California Department of Forestry
Environmental Protection Information Center California Department of Food & Agriculture Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin, Attorneys at Law Ventura County Counsel Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) County of Yolo Seatuck Environmental Association Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program Save Our Scenic Area Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound East Bay Regional Park District Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk County of Alameda
Alameda Creek Alliance Don & LaNelle Silverstien
Center for Biological Diversity Seventh Day Adventist Church California Native Plant Society Escuela de la Raza Unida Endangered Wildlife Trust Susan Pelican and Howard Beeman and BirdLife South Africa Residents Against Inconsistent Development, Inc.
AquAlliance Bob Sarvey
Oregon Natural Desert Association Mike Boyd
Save Our Sound Hillcroft Neighborhood Fund
G3 Energy and Pattern Energy Joint Labor Management Committee, Retail Food Industry Emerald Farms Lisa Rocca
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Kevin Jackson
Southern California Edison Co. Dawn Stover and Jay Letto Georgia-Pacific Timber Co. Nancy Havassy
Northern Territories Inc. Catherine Portman (for Brenda Cedarblade) David Magney Environmental Consulting Ventus Environmental Solutions, Inc.
Wildlife History Foundation Panorama Environmental, Inc.
NextEra Energy Resources, LLC Adams Broadwell Professional Corporation Ogin, Inc.
Smallwood CV 50
Representative special-status species experience
Common name Species name Description
Field experience
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Protocol searches; Many detections Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Presence surveys; Many detections Western spadefoot Spea hammondii Presence surveys; Few detections California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense Protocol searches; Many detections Coast range newt Taricha torosa torosa Searches and multiple detections Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila Detected in San Luis Obispo County California horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale Searches; Many detections Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata Searches; Many detections San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica Protocol searches; detections Sumatran tiger Panthera tigris Track surveys in Sumatra Mountain lion Puma concolor californicus Research and publications Point Arena mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa nigra Remote camera operation Giant kangaroo rat Dipodomys ingens Detected in Cholame Valley San Joaquin kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides Monitoring & habitat restoration Monterey dusky-footed woodrat Neotoma fuscipes luciana Non-target captures and mapping of dens Salt marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris Habitat assessment, monitoring Salinas harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotus
distichlus
Captures; habitat assessment
Bats Thermal imaging surveys
California clapper rail Rallus longirostris Surveys and detections Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Numerical & behavioral surveys Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Numerical & behavioral surveys Northern harrier Circus cyaeneus Numerical & behavioral surveys White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Numerical & behavioral surveys Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Large area surveys Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Detected in Monterey County Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Research at Sierra Nevada breeding sites Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugia Numerical & behavioral surveys Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
Monitored success of relocation and habitat
restoration
Analytical
Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Research and report.
Giant garter snake Thamnophis gigas Research and publication Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Research and publication Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis Research and reports Alameda whipsnake Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Expert testimony
EXHIBIT C
Letter EMY
WI #22-004.06
March 3, 2022
Ms. Amalia Bowley Fuentes
Legal Fellow
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
SUBJECT: Administrative Draft Amond World Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Comments on the Noise Analysis
Dear Ms. Fuentes,
Per your request, I have reviewed the subject matter document Administrative Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND). The proposed Project would construct a cold storage warehouse for agricultural products. The Project would consist of two (2) phases to occupy two (2) parcels that total over 30 acres located on the westside of Golden State Boulevard between Avenue 16 and Avenue 17 in Madera, CA. The project involves the construction of two refrigerated warehouse and storage facilities, one on each parcel, with each providing over 250,000 sq ft. Phase I would construct one such facility, and Phase II would construct the other and include a ground mount solar PV array.
Errors in the ISMND
We identified a few errors in the ISMND. In addition to corrupted graphics in the Project Description (e.g., Figure 2-3, 2-4 and various “error! Reference not found” broken links) in Section 4.13 there are references to figures that are in Appendix C. For example, p. 4-81, in the last two paragraphs, Figure 3 and Figure 4 are referenced; since these figures are presumably in Appendix C (Environmental Noise Assessment), these references should be corrected.
In its discussion of the Madera Municipal Code, the ISMND on page 4-80 appears to have omitted Section 3-11.01 of the Code. The relevant portion of that section1 is as follows (emphasis mine):
§ 3-11.01 UNLAWFUL NOISE.
(A) No person shall make, or cause or permit to be made or caused, upon any premises owned, occupied, possessed, or controlled by them or upon any public street, alley, or thoroughfare any unnecessary noise or sound which is physically annoying to persons of ordinary and normal 1 As viewed online: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/madera/latest/madera_ca/0-0-0-1614
WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS, NO ISE & VIBRAT ION
5900 HOLLIS STREET. SUITE T1 EMERYVILLE. CA 94608 (510) 658-6719
CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON
NEW YORK
WWW.WILSONIHRIG.COM
WILSON IHRIG
Amond World ISMND
sensitivity or which is so harsh or so prolonged unnatural or unusual in its use, time, and place as to cause physical discomfort, or which is injurious to the lives health, peace, and comfort of the inhabitants of the city.
Thresholds of Significance are Not Properly Developed
Per CEQA2, the ISMND must clearly show that the mitigation would eliminate significant effects:
Figure 1 CEQA Section 15070(b)
The ISMND does not clearly define several thresholds of significance, including a) annoyance per the Madera Municipal Code and b) sleep disruption. Thus, the ISMND needs to identify these thresholds clearly to provide evidence that the mitigation measure(s) would be sufficient to eliminate (potentially) significant impacts.
Annoyance
The Madera Municipal Code Section 3-11.01(A) prohibits the Project from generating “unnecessary noise or sound which is physically annoying to persons of ordinary and normal sensitivity.” Annoyance is a complex issue, which can depend on the parameters such as the character of the noise, the absolute level, the relative noise increase, and the time of day just to name a few. A new sound can annoy people just because it is different. Two approaches that can be used to determine the potential for annoyance include:
Absolute noise level
The World Health Organization3 identifies a guidance of 55 dBA Leq (outdoors) to determine serious annoyance concerns. ISMND documents a typical daytime level of about 58 dBA hourly Leq at LT-1 near the R/V park (59 Ldn), and about 63 dBA hourly Leq at LT-2 near the residences on Boles which reached 66 Ldn (see Appendix, Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively.) The noise environment near LT2 lies in the Tentatively Acceptable Category, and the ISMND identifies several policies in the General Plan which intend to maintain or improve existing conditions to be Completely Acceptable (Ldn 60 or less). For these reasons, to minimize the potential for the Project to increase the noise at the surrounding residences it could be determined that Project noise should be limited to an hourly Leq of 55 dBA at the R/V park and 60 dBA hourly Leq near the Boles residences. 2 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IA1DEFD80D48811DEBC02831C6D6C108E? 3 WHO Guidelines for Community Noise, accessed online https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66217, Table 4.1 (bl The 1nit1el study 1dent1fies potentially significant effects but (1 ) Revisions 1n lhe project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negalive declaration and mitral study are released for public review would avord the effects or mitigate the eltects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There 1s no substantial evidence, In light of the whole record before the agency that the pro1ect as revised may have a s1gnif1cant effect on the environment
WILSON IHRIG
Amond World ISMND
Relative noise increase
The General Plan, policy N-13 considers a 5 dB increase in the Ldn to be significant. For daytime-only activities, such as construction noise, does the ISMND also consider a 5 dBA increase significant4 from on-going construction noise? For nighttime sources, such as the refrigeration pods which would generally operate 24/7, it may be more appropriate to consider how the background noise level could change. People are trying to sleep, and are potentially more sensitive to smaller increases than during the daytime hours. The ISMND provides background noise data (L90) measured at LT-1 and LT2 as listed on page 4-81 and graphed in Figures 3 and 4 of the Appendix, respectively.
Refrigeration equipment often contains tonal components from the compressors and fans, and it may be appropriate to consider a 0 to 5 dBA increase significant.
Sleep Disruption
The ISMND provides no threshold to determine whether construction activities could cause sleep disruption. On page 4-84 the potential for significant impact is identified, along with mitigation measure NOISE-2 which would prohibit construction activities before 6 AM and after 8 PM based on the Madera Code prohibitions. However, since the noise standards presented in the ISMND identify the nighttime hours to end at 7 AM, noisy construction activities occurring between 6 AM and 7 AM could cause sleep disruption and would be potentially significant.
To evaluate the potential significance of construction activities between 6 AM and 7 AM and any Project operations between 10 PM and 7 AM, it is necessary to define significance thresholds. WHO also identifies a guidance of 45 dBA Leq (outdoors) to avoid sleep disturbance from a continuous source, and a limit of 60 dBA Lmax for intermittent sources for conventional homes5. At the R/V park, a lower limit could be warranted due to the thinner wall construction, perhaps 40 dBA Leq and 55 dBA Lmax.
Impact Analyses are Incomplete
The impact assessment discussion would benefit from improved clarity in the presentation of the results. For example, in the concluding paragraph for the refrigerator pod analysis on page 4-83 (3rd complete paragraph), the ISMND states, “Such levels do not exceed any City of Madera noise level standards. Additionally, such levels do not exceed existing (without project) ambient noise levels measured near sensitive receptor locations.” It would be very helpful to restate the “City of Madera noise level standards” and the “ambient noise levels” that are being referenced at this juncture of the analysis. A table would be helpful to illustrate these limits and the impact analyses, for example:
4 For example, the City of San Francisco considers the relative increase and the time duration. A recent project under review is the PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Preliminary PMND, public draft, page 89, available via https://sfplanning.org/environmental-review-documents 5 These outdoor levels assume that the residence reduces noise by 15 dBA with windows open; for a thin-walled recreational vehicle or mobile home, a more realistic value might be 10 dBA.
WILSON IHRIG
Amond World ISMND
Table 1 Summary of Noise from Amond World Operations
Receptor
Ambient
Conditions
Madera noise
level standards
Refrigerator
Pod Noise
Truck
Noise
Parking
Lot
Total Project
Noise
Significant
or
Potentially
Significant
Noise
Impact
LT-2 (Boles
Residences)
66 Ldn
54-63 Hourly
Leq
45-59 Hourly
L90
5 dB Ldn increase
50 dBA Lmax
night1
60 dBA Lmax
daytime1
Less than 60 Ldn
“completely
compatible”
Daytime Annoyance
60 dBA Leq
Nighttime
Annoyance
50-55 dBA Leq
Sleep disruption
45 dBA Leq
60 dBA Lmax
32 dBA hourly
Leq and L902
South side:
26-39 Lmax
North side:
38-51 Lmax
34-39 dBA
Lmax
Potentially
<51 dBA Leq
with trucks on
the north side
at night
Yes if trucks
on north side
at night per
local code.
LT-1 (R/V
park)
59 Ldn
45-58 Hourly
Leq
32-54 Hourly
L90
5 dB Ldn increase
50 dBA Lmax
night1
60 dBA Lmax
daytime1
Less than 60 Ldn
“completely
compatible”
Daytime Annoyance
55 dBA Leq
Nighttime
Annoyance
32-37 dBA Leq
Sleep disruption
40 dBA Leq
55 dBA Lmax
39 dBA hourly
Leq and L902
45-51 Lmax <<34 dBA
Lmax
Undetermined,
potentially <51
dBA Leq
Pod noise
is
potentially
significant
Note 1: night is 10 PM to 7 AM; day is 7 AM to 10 PM
Note 2: if the equipment is operating continuously, it will dominate the background and the L90 if it is higher than the existing L90
Items in bold red indicate information developed in this letter.
The on-going construction noise has not been calculated. Table VIII in Appendix C does not indicate which FHWA reference was used. One way to derive the hourly Leq from construction is to combine the top 2 or 3 noisy pieces of equipment. For example, during the site preparation phase it is conceivable that a scraper and a grader could be operated continuously for several days. Assuming that these two pieces might contribute to the total construction noise for 100% of any given hour, the combined noise at 100 ft distance (closest receptors) could be 83 dBA. This noise level could exceed 68 dBA would be a substantial increase at homes on Boles Street.
WILSON IHRIG
Amond World ISMND
The potential for annoyance and sleep disruption from construction noise could be presented in this way:
Table 2 Summary of Noise from Amond World Construction
Receptor
Ambient
Conditions Significance Thresholds
Construction
Noise
Significant or Potentially
Significant Noise Impact
LT-2 (Boles
Residences)
66 Ldn
54-63 Hourly Leq
45-59 Hourly L90
Annoyance
68 dBA Leq (Ambient +
5)
Sleep disruption
45 dBA Leq
60 dBA Lmax
Grading: 83
dBA hourly
Leq
Daytime annoyance: Yes
Sleep disruption: Yes (6 to 7
AM)
LT-1 (R/V park) 59 Ldn
45-58 Hourly Leq
32-54 Hourly L90
Annoyance
63 dBA Leq (Ambient +
5)
Sleep disruption
40 dBA Leq
55 dBA Lmax
Grading: 62
dBA hourly
Leq
Daytime annoyance: No
Sleep disruption: Yes (6 to 7
AM)
Items in bold red indicated information developed in this letter Mitigation Measures are Insufficient
Mitigation measure NOISE-1 is insufficient
As outlined in Table 1 above, noise from the refrigeration pods is potentially significant at the R/V park, and the mitigation measure must include a provision to reduce the pod noise at these homes.
Mitigation measure NOISE-2 lacks evidence
As noted above, there is no clear threshold to establish daytime annoyance impact or sleep disruption impact. The ISMND provides no evidence to show that most of the NOISE-2 provisions would mitigate these impacts. For example:
Who defines whether construction is “properly maintained” and whether equipment is “adequately muffled”? What evidence can be presented to ensure these provide meaningful noise reduction from construction equipment? Who will enforce this? Will the contractor be required to have a maintenance log available for review? How is “immediate use” defined in terms of equipment idling, and how is that balanced with the logistics of getting the work done and the noise and emissions from re-starting equipment. Would a time limit be useful (e.g., no greater than 5 minutes idling or choose a value consistent with air quality requirements).
When locating equipment and staging areas to the “greatest possible distance” and “to the extent feasible”, who determines what is feasible? Will the contractor be required to submit a staging and noisy equipment layout plan for approval? How much detail will be required? Will noise calculations be required?
In the absence of clear thresholds to evaluate annoyance and sleep disruption, these best practices cannot be meaningfully evaluated to confirm that the potential impacts would be mitigated.
WILSON IHRIG
Amond World ISMND
Mitigation measures have inconsistent time limits
Furthermore, in limiting truck noise along the north side of the building (mitigation measure NOISE1) those hours were set between 10 PM and 7AM. However, mitigation measure NOISE-2 relies only the Municipal Code time limits to restrict construction activities before 6 AM. Noisy construction activities occurring between 6 AM and 7 AM could cause sleep disruption and would be potentially significant, and some clear guidance must be provided to identify what activities or equipment should be prohibited between 6 AM and 7 AM.
Conclusions
The ISMND identifies potentially significant impacts from operations and construction of the project, but it lacks quantitative thresholds to evaluate the suitability of its proposed mitigation measures.
Recommended thresholds have been provided, based on the ambient environment and different methods to determine the potential for annoyance and sleep disturbance.
Mitigation measure NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 require additional details and evidence to show that the significant and potentially significant impacts would be clearly and fully mitigated.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.
Very truly yours,
WILSON IHRIG
Deborah A. Jue, INCE-USA
Principal
amond world ismnd_noise review_wilson ihrig_3-7-22.docx
DEBORAH JUE
Principal
Since joining Wilson Ihrig in 1990, Ms. Jue has been involved in with many projects from environmental assessments and entitlements, through design development, construction documents and construction administration support. As an acoustical consultant, she has provided noise measurement, analysis and recommendations to control noise and vibration both at the interior of the project and at the neighboring properties. She has authored many reports concerning compliance with the requirements of California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 24, local Noise Elements, environmental assessments and Federal noise criteria, and is well aware of the additional design and construction technique requirements to achieve industry standards. Ms. Jue has authored or provided input for many environmental documents and technical studies in accordance with NEPA and California’s CEQA regulations, most of them related to surface transportation, and she gives presentations to public officials when necessary to explain construction noise problems, noise mitigation goals, and noise control methods. She can develop construction noise and vibration criteria to address vibration damage potential to nearby buildings and sensitive structures, and vibration annoyance or disruption potential for occupants of nearby buildings.
Education
M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1998 B.S. in General Engineering: Acoustics, Stanford University, 1988 Professional Associations (Member)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Acoustical Society of America
National Council of Acoustical Consultants
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
WTS
Transportation Research Board, AEP80 Standing Committee Member (2021-2024) Research and Published Papers
ACRP Report 175, ACRP 07-14, Improving Intelligibility of Airport Terminal Public Address Systems
NCHRP 25-25, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects
Transportation Research Record, V. 2502, “Considerations to Establish Ground-Borne Noise Criteria to Define Mitigation for Noise-Sensitive Spaces” Relevant Experience
California High Speed Rail Caltrain Corridor EIR/EIS, San Francisco to San Jose UC Berkeley Northgate Hall A/V Renovations, Berkeley
MacArthur Station, long-term construction noise and vibration monitoring, Oakland Safeway @ Claremont & College, HVAC noise and construction noise monitoring, Oakland ACTC I-80/Ashby, interchange traffic noise analysis, Berkeley and Emeryville ACTC I-680 Express Lanes, traffic noise analysis, Contra Costa County, CA Chase Arena, construction noise and vibration monitoring, San Francisco W ILSON IHRIG ACOUSTICS. NOISE & VIBRAT ION
1 1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Via Email
March 22, 2022
Robert Gran Jr., Chairperson
City of Madera Planning Commission
205 W. 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
Robert Smith, Senior Planner
City of Madera
205 W. 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
[email protected]
RE: Response Letter to Comment Letter received from Lozeau Drury LLP on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2021-41
Dear Chairperson Robert Gran Jr. and Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of Origo Investments and the City of Madera, Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) has prepared the following letter in response to the comment letter received from Lozeau Drury LLP on March 7, 2022, about the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2021-41.
Comments received from Lozeau Drury LLP are focused on impacts related to Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Biological Resources, and Noise. Therefore, the responses on the following pages are concentrated on such impact areas.
This response letter has been prepared with the assistance of the following technical experts (See Attached Resumes):
• Air Quality/GHG: Kimber Johnson, Debbie Johnson, and Richard Miller of Johnson, Johnson, and Miller Air Quality Specialists
• Biological Resources: Kathy Kinsland of Argonaut Ecological Consultants, Inc. • Noise: Walter J. Van Groningen of WJV Acoustics, Inc.
Responses from these technical experts are incorporated herein by reference. -ii'RECl!!!!!ilitrJ
CIVI L ENG IN = ;: RING, I NC
March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 2 Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1. “The IS/MND relied on unsubstantiated input parameters to estimate project emissions and thus the project may result in significant air quality impacts.” Response:
The comment raises concerns related to the assumptions and values that were used to estimate the project’s estimation of air pollutant emissions during construction and operations of the project. These emission estimates were used in the air quality impact analysis to make significance determinations related to the project’s potential to adversely affect air quality resources. Specifically, SWAPE (the environmental consulting firm that prepared the letter) found that the following values used in the IS/MND’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND or otherwise unjustified:
a. “Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses. Ex. A, p. 2-3.” b. “Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors and Areas. Ex. A, p. 3-5.”
c. “Incorrect Construction Schedule. Ex. A, p. 5-6.”
d. “Failure to Substantiate Amount of Required Material Import and Export. Ex.
A, p. 6-7.”
e. “Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures. Ex. A, p. 7-8.” The commenter’s concerns for each input called out in the comment letter are addressed below.
a. “Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses. Ex. A, p. 2-3.” Response:
The comment states that the values input into the model were unsubstantiated or inconsistent with the information provided in the IS/MND, which the commenter purports result in an underestimation of the project’s emissions.
Specifically, the commentor raises concerns related to the land use selection used in the CalEEMod modeling. As documented as part of Appendix A of the IS/MND, under Attachment A of the Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, And Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum prepared for the project—CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information—the inputs used to represent the project’s land use are consistent with information provided in the stable project description used throughout the IS/MND.
For construction, it is important that the full amount of building square footage and the total area to be disturbed are accounted for in the land use summary. When March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 3 estimating construction emissions, these two considerations will impact other factors that CalEEMod will populate. For instance, there are several factors that are based on the total acreage of all land uses represented in the land use development summary that are solely based on the acreage and not the specific land use input in the model. Therefore, any changes to the land use selected would not change the construction estimates unless the total building square footage or total acreage were altered. Therefore, the commenter’s concerns do not provide any evidence that construction emission were underestimated.
Specific emission factors associated with land use type are pertinent for the estimation of operational emissions. The representation of land uses used in the CalEEMod files to estimate the project’s generation of emissions are based on project-specific information that matches information provided in the stable project description used throughout the IS/MND. Since the total building area is accounted for in CalEEMod as “Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail”, CalEEMod estimated emissions associated with operations of the building based on a Refrigerated Warehouse land use. Emissions associated with the building include energy, waste, water, and some area-source emissions. In each instance, any portion of the building that would be dedicated to office uses rather than warehouse uses were represented in CalEEMod as a Refrigerated Warehouse. This assumption represents a conservative estimate of emission based on the building type; therefore, these emissions were not underestimated in the IS/MND.
The remaining area sources for the project would be estimated in CalEEMod based on the total size of the project. The CalEEMod runs conservatively assumed the full project site would be developed, resulting in the maximum amount of area-source emissions for those categories based on project site. The remaining category estimated in CalEEMod that is affected by the land use development selections include mobile sources. For project operations, the largest contributor to air most air pollutant emissions come from mobile sources (automobiles). Rather than relying on CalEEMod default values dependent on the land use selection for mobilesources, the air quality analysis included in the IS/MND relied on project-specific information supported by substantial evidence (see the operational modeling assumptions discussion contained in the Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum starting on PDF page 161 of the IS/MND). The analysis in the IS/MND and the associated less-than-significant conclusions for related to the project’s potential impacts to air quality resources remain accurate.
b. “Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors and Areas. Ex. A, p. 3-5.”
Response:
The emission estimates presented in the IS/MND accurately represented the project’s estimation of ROG emissions during construction. The adjustment to the March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 4 architectural coating emission factor to 50 g/L was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the adjustment reflects compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 4601. As a result, the emission estimates included in Attachment A of the IS/MND do not underestimate the project’s generation of emissions and can be relied upon.
As such, the less-than-significant conclusion related to the project’s generation of construction emissions remains accurate.
c. “Incorrect Construction Schedule. Ex. A, p. 5-6.”
Response:
The construction schedule used to estimate emissions in the IS/MND is based on reasonable assumptions and best practices. CalEEMod contains built-in default inventories of construction equipment for a variety of land use construction projects that incorporate estimates of the number of equipment, their age, their horsepower, and emission control equipment tier mix from which rates of emissions are developed. These inventories were developed based on construction surveys for several land use projects. Where project-specific information was unknown, the CalEEMod default values were retained. Where available, project-specific information provided by the applicant was relied upon.
For the construction duration, a request for information was provided to the project sponsor for input related to project-specific construction parameters. The construction schedules used in the CalEEmod modeling files were based on this information, as well as information provided in the project description included in the IS/MND. In the CalEEMod model, the default equipment hours do not change when the CalEEMod default construction schedule is changed. As shown in Appendix A of the IS/MND, the CalEEMod default values for construction phase lengths were revised in the modeling for the IS/MND based on project-specific information.
In order to retain the same total CalEEMod default construction equipment usage estimates prior to the change in schedule, the usage hours for each piece of equipment were adjusted to match the total equipment hours. The resulting construction schedule and associated average daily construction usage does not improperly spread-out construction, as it relies on project-specific information and counteracts any arbitrary benefits from altering the schedule by adjusting the construction HP hours to match the CalEEMod default construction HP hours estimated without adjustments to the schedule. Therefore, the emission estimates presented in the IS/MND represent a conservative estimate of both total and maximum daily construction emission estimates.
d. “Failure to Substantiate Amount of Required Material Import and Export. Ex. A, p. 6-7.”
March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 5 Response:
Where project-specific information was unknown, the CalEEMod default values were retained. Where available, project-specific information provided by the applicant was relied upon. Prior to commencement of the emissions modeling, a request for information was provided to the project sponsor for input related to project-specific construction parameters. Based on the responses to the request for information, it was assumed the cut and fill would be balanced on-site for the entire project. This assumption is also consistent with the CalEEMod default values, as the CalEEMod default value for grading haul trips is zero. In addition, the CalEEMod runs used to estimate emission included additional haul trips to account for miscellaneous trips (see PDF pages 160-161 of the IS/MND). As a result, the construction emissions presented in the IS/MND represent a conservative estimate of project emissions.
e. “Incorrect Application of Operational Mitigation Measures. Ex. A, p. 7-8.” Response:
The commenter’s assertion that the operational mitigation measures were incorrectly applied is inaccurate. The CalEEMod application nominally classifies compliance with regulations not already accounted for in the model as “mitigation measures.” However, compliance with regulations legally required in the project area would not constitute mitigation required specifically for this project. The input parameters used in the CalEEMod files used to estimate the project’s emissions (included in Appendix A of the IS/MND) are based on project-specific information to accurately reflect the project as it is described in the project description included in the IS/MND and the assumption used in the project-specific traffic analysis. As stated in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, “[f]or any project that substantially deviates from the types and features included in the surveys, site-specific data that are supported by substantial evidence should be used, if available.” As such, sitespecific data was used that was provided by the project sponsor with direct knowledge of the project and is the most appropriate for use in CalEEMod.
Further, reflecting compliance with regulations that are already in effect (but not reflected in the CalEEMod default values) is also appropriate. The IS/MND outlines the changes that were made the to CalEEMod input values and provides substantial evidence for these non-default values. Parameters specific to the greenhouse gas analysis are described in the GHG sections of the IS/MND and the GHG section of the technical analysis prepared for the project. These regulations include: Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements for year 2030, Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use), California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (outdoor water), CalRecycle 75 Percent Initiative (solid waste). Other adjustments are discussed and substantiated in the “Assumptions” section of the Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum prepared for the project. The low-VOC adjustment March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 6 appears in the CalEEMod output files due to the emission factor adjustments made to reflect compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings.
Landscaping adjustments are based on the SJVAPCD-recommended value for representing statewide averages for electric landscaping equipment (3%) and does not require additional supporting evidence beyond what has been provided by the SJVAPCD for use by the public. As a result, the emission estimates included in Attachment A of the IS/MND do not underestimate the project’s generation of air pollutant emissions and can be relied upon.
In summary, the model inputs included in Appendix A to the IS/MND are consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. In addition, inputs were selected to reflect the most accurate project information and values were selected to ensure a conservative estimate of project-generated emissions. As a result, the emission estimates included in Attachment A of the IS/MND do not underestimate the project’s generation of emissions for either construction or operations.
Furthermore, the IS/MND provides substantial evidence for the use of the thresholds used to make the significance determinations for the air quality impacts that relied upon emission estimates. The analysis in the IS/MND and the associated less-than-significant conclusions for related to the project’s potential impacts to air quality resources remain accurate.
2. “An updated air model analysis found that the project will have a significant air quality impact.”
Response:
To more accurately determine the Project’s construction and operational emissions, SWAPE prepared an updated CalEEMod model using more sitespecific information and corrected input parameters. See Ex. A, p. 8. SWAPE’s updated analysis demonstrates that the Project’s construction-related ROG emissions for Phase I and Phase II are 370.3 and 365.7, respectively, both of which exceed the applicable SJVAPCD threshold of 100 pounds per day. Id. at 8-9. Based on SWAPE’s application of the model, they purport that there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may result in a potentially significant air quality impact and thus an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment. The problem is that SWAPE’s application of the model is flawed.
The comment alleges that the IS/MND’s analysis, as well as the subsequent lessthan significant impact conclusion related to the project’s generation of air pollutant emissions during the construction period, is incorrect because the commenter believes the project’s emissions of ROG during the construction period were underestimated. The alternative analysis presented by SWAP shows an exceedance of the SJVAPCD’s 100-pound-per-day screening for ROG. It should be noted that the SJVAPCD’s on-site maximum daily screening thresholds are only March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 7 for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. On-site emissions of ROG were shown in the IS/MND for informational purposes only. Nonetheless, the commenter’s concerns related to estimation of ROG are addressed below.
As shown in Appendix A of the IS/MND and noted by the commenter, architectural coating emission factors associated with nonresidential interior and exterior surfaces were reduced from the default values of 150- to 50-grams per liter (“g/L”).
It should be noted that the commenter states that emission factors for “architectural coating and area coating” were adjusted; however, the adjustments were specifically made to the architectural coating emission factors. The emission factor affects construction emissions under the “architectural coating” phase and is accounted for in operations (from occasional repainting of buildings) under “area source”. Therefore, addressing the adjustment to architectural coating emission factors fully addresses the commenter’s concern related to reductions to architectural and area coating emissions factors.
The justification for the adjustments to the architectural coating emission factors are supported by substantial evidence in Appendix A of the IS/MND (PDF page 162 of the IS/MND). As stated in the Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum prepared for the project, the project will be required to comply with the SJVAPCD Rule 4601—Architectural Coatings. The rule requires flat paints to meet a standard of 50 grams per liter (g/l) by 2012 Effective January 1, 2022, nonflat gloss and semigloss paints are also required to meet the 50 g/l standard. Any building panting that would occur on-site would use flat or nonflat gloss and semigloss paints that would be subject to SJVAPCD Rule 4601. Paints that have higher allowable emission factors are specialized and would not be included as part of the on-site construction activities. Emission factors associated with painting of the parking lot lines were not adjusted in the modeling included in the IS/MND. Because the project would be constructed after January 1, 2022, it is appropriate to assume compliance SJVAPCD Rule 4601 and therefore, adjust the building interior and exterior emission factor values to 50 g/l to reflect compliance with this rule.
In summary, the emission estimates presented in the IS/MND accurately represented the project’s estimation of ROG emissions during construction. The adjustment to the architectural coating emission factor to 50 g/L was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the adjustment reflects compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 4601. As a result, the emission estimates included in Attachment A of the IS/MND do not underestimate the project’s generation of emissions and can be relied upon. As such, the less-than-significant conclusion related to the project’s generation of construction emissions remains accurate.
3. “There is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions.” March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 8 Response:
This comment states that Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) prepared a screening-level Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to evaluate potential impacts from project construction and operation. The comment states that the SWAPE found that the excess cancer risk for infants over the course of project construction and operation are approximately 45.01 in 1 million. The comment states that this analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the proposed project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. The comment states that the City must prepare a EIR including discussion of a completed HRA must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from TACS from project construction.
The commenter’s attempt to re-evaluate health risks based on a screening-level analysis is acknowledged. However, it should be clearly understood that a “screening-level” analysis should inherently contain more conservative assumptions to avoid underestimating emissions when performing a “screeninglevel” analysis. This is the case for SCREEN3 and AERSCREEN (used for the commenter’s screening analysis) compared to more detailed AERMOD model, which was used for the health risk assessment included as part of the IS/MND.
Therefore, it is likely that the commenter’s conclusion of a significant impact, which differs from the IS/MNDs analysis, is a result of those more conservative assumptions and the lack of project-specific information that was the basis for the IS/MND analysis.
By contrast, the air quality analysis and construction HRA presented in the IS/MND used project-specific information from the project applicant, the stable project description used throughout the IS/MND, and location-based inputs such as terrain and meteorological data. In other words, the health risk impacts presented in the IS/MND relied on modeling that used project-specific information and appropriate location-based parameters that result in a more robust and refined analysis compared to one prepared using a “screening-level” level model such as AERSCREEN. Thus, the IS/MND analysis provides an accurate and conservative estimate of the project’s health risk impacts.
Furthermore, other localized air impacts were adequately addressed in the IS/MND. As described on page 4-16 of the IS/MND, The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years. In addition, the most intense construction activities of the project’s construction would occur during site preparation and grading phases over a short period. There are no conditions unique to the project site that would require more intense construction activity compared to typical development. Examples of situations that would March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 9 warrant closer scrutiny may include sites that would require extensive excavation and hauling due to existing site conditions. In addition, the project screened out of needing to complete a more refined analysis to determine the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACS during project construction based on the screening analysis summarized on page 4-15 of the IS/MND. Because construction is short-term, it is appropriate to use the localized screening analysis to determine if a more refined analysis is necessary to determine the project’s potential to exposure sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs during the construction period. It is common for PM2.5 or PM10 to be used as a proxy for diesel particulate matter (DPM). As shown on page 4-15 of the IS/MND, the project’s maximum on-site daily emissions of PM would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s 100-pounds-per day screening thresholds for either PM2.5 or PM10. Based on this information, coupled with the proposed project’s anticipated construction schedule, it can be concluded that the health risks resulting from construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s applicable thresholds.
4. “The IS/MND failed to adequately analyze the project’s greenhouse has impacts and thus the project may result in significant greenhouse gas emissions.” Response:
The IS/MND estimates that in 2023, the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 10,213 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (“MTCO2e/year”), without regulations and design features, and 3,786 MTCO2e/year with them. IS/MND, p.4-50, Table 4-10. In 2030, the IS/MND estimates 10,190 MTCO2e/year without regulations and design features, and 3,321 MTCO2e/year with them. Id. The IS/MND relies on consistency with CARB’s Adopted Scoping Plans and GHG Reduction Goals for 2050 under Executive Order S-3-05 to conclude that the project would have a less-than-significant GHG impact.
However, SWAPE states that the IS/MND’s analysis and conclusion about greenhouse gas impacts is incorrect for two reasons:
a. “Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Air Model. Ex. A, p. 16.” b. “Unsubstantiated Reduction Measures. Ex. A, p. 16-17.” SWAPE’s analysis demonstrates a potentially significant GHG emission impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes numerous feasible mitigation measures. The City must prepare an EIR with an updated GHG analysis and requiring the implementation of these measures.
It should be noted that Impact GHG (b) did not rely on the estimation of the project’s GHG emissions to make a significance conclusion; therefore, the concerns being addressed are relevant to Impact GHG (a) of the IS/MND. The two main points brought up in the comment are addressed separately below.
March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 10 a. “Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Air Model. Ex. A, p. 16.” Response:
The comment states that the conclusions that “[t]he IS/MND’s qualitative GHG analysis relies upon unsubstantiated reduction measures” was because the inputs used to estimate the GHG emissions were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. The comment refers back to the review of the CalEEMod inputs discussed in comment 1, a-e and does not bring up any new concerns with input values that would only be relevant estimating GHG emissions. The concerns related to these input values were discussed in responses to previous comments and are summarized again below.
1.a. “Concern from Comment: Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses” Response:
As documented as part of Appendix A of the IS/MND, under Attachment A of the Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, And Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum prepared for the project—CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information—the inputs used to represent the project’s land use are consistent with information provided in the stable project description used throughout the IS/MND.
Rather than relying on CalEEMod default values dependent on the land use selection for mobile-sources, the air quality analysis included in the IS/MND relied on project-specific information supported by substantial evidence (see the operational modeling assumptions discussion contained in the Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum starting on PDF page 161 of the IS/MND). Emissions associated with the building include energy, waste, water, and some area-source emissions. In each instance, any portion of the building that would be dedicated to office uses rather than warehouse uses were represented in CalEEMod as a Refrigerated Warehouse. This assumption represents a conservative estimate of emission based on the building type; therefore, these emissions were not underestimated in the IS/MND.
1.b. “Unsubstantiated Reductions to Architectural and Area Coating Emission Factors and Areas”
Response:
The adjustments to the architectural coating emission factors to 50 g/L was reflects compliance with SJVAPCD Rule 4601 and is supported by substantial evidence.
1.c. “Incorrect Construction Schedule”
Response:
March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 11 The construction schedule used to estimate emissions in the IS/MND is based on reasonable assumptions and best practices, including relying on project-specific information. Adjustments were made to retain the total CalEEMod-default construction HP hours to avoid underestimating emissions by altering the construction schedule.
1.d. “Failure to Substantiate Amount of Required Material Import and Export” Response:
Inputs were based on project-specific information, with additional haul trips included to estimate emissions from miscellaneous construction trips.
As such, the model inputs included in Appendix A to the IS/MND are consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. In addition, inputs were selected to reflect the most accurate project information and values were selected to ensure a conservative estimate of project-generated emissions. As a result, the emission estimates included in Attachment A of the IS/MND do not underestimate the project’s generation of GHG emissions and can be relied upon. Furthermore, the IS/MND provides substantial evidence for the use of the thresholds used to make the significance determination for whether the project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (evaluated under Impact GHG (a) in the IS/MND). As noted on page 4-52 of the IS/MND, the project exceeds the required 29 percent below BAU guidance provided by the SJVAPCD. Furthermore, the proposed project shows significant reductions in the year 2030, demonstrating that it would not inhibit the State’s progress in achieving the 2030 GHG emissions target. The less-thansignificant conclusion for Impact GHG (a) remains accurate. b. “Unsubstantiated Reduction Measures. Ex. A, p. 16-17.” Response:
The comment states that the values input into the model were unsubstantiated because the project’s GHG reduction design features are not formally included as mitigation measures. The comment goes on to state that because ethe GHG reduction features are not formally included as mitigation measure, there is no guarantee that they would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the project site.
It should be noted that the commenter only references the statement that “the project’s emission estimates include compliance with regulation and design features” and not specifically state which model input(s) (or “GHG reduction measures”) they believe result in an underestimation of emissions. As such, this March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 12 response addresses key inputs that may appear to reduce the project’s generation of GHG emissions.
The commenter’s assertion that the GHG reduction measures would not be enforced or included in the project design is incorrect. The CalEEMod application nominally classifies compliance with regulations not already accounted for in the model as “mitigation measures.” However, compliance with regulations legally required in the project area would not constitute mitigation required specifically for this project. The input parameters used in the CalEEMod files used to estimate the project’s GHG emissions (included in Appendix A of the IS/MND) are based on project-specific information to accurately reflect the project as it is described in the project description included in the IS/MND and the assumption used in the projectspecific traffic analysis.
As stated in the CalEEMod User’s Guide, “[f]or any project that substantially deviates from the types and features included in the surveys, site-specific data that are supported by substantial evidence should be used, if available.” As such, sitespecific data was used that was provided by the project sponsor with direct knowledge of the project and is the most appropriate for use in CalEEMod. Further, reflecting compliance with regulations that are already in effect (but not reflected in the CalEEMod default values) is also appropriate. The IS/MND outlines the changes that were made the to CalEEMod input values and provides substantial evidence for these non-default values.
As noted on page 4-49 of the IS/MND, there are several regulations that have not been incorporated in the default CalEEMod emission factors and require adjustments to show compliance. These regulations include: Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements for year 2030, Green Building Code Standards (indoor water use), California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (outdoor water), CalRecycle 75 Percent Initiative (solid waste). As a cold storage project, the GHG emission estimates also included fugitive refrigerants. As noted on page 4-53 of the IS/MND and described in more detail in Appendix A of the IS/MND (IS/MND PDF page 164 – Refrigerants Section of the Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum), California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Refrigerant Management Program requires all supermarket and industrial refrigeration systems with a full recharge capacity of 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) or greater to limit the refrigerants used to 150 GWP. None of the above mentioned “GHG reduction features” would require mitigation to be enforced and implemented and part of the proposed project.
As a result, the emission estimates included in Attachment A of the IS/MND do not underestimate the project’s generation of GHG emissions and can be relied upon.
Furthermore, the IS/MND provides substantial evidence for the use of the thresholds used to make the significance determination for whether the project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (evaluated under Impact GHG (a) in the March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 13 IS/MND). As noted on page 4-52 of the IS/MND, the project exceeds the required 29 percent below BAU guidance provided by the SJVAPCD. Furthermore, the proposed project shows significant reductions in the year 2030, demonstrating that it would not inhibit the State’s progress in achieving the 2030 GHG emissions target. The less-than-significant conclusion for Impact GHG (a) remains accurate.
CEQA does not require the imposition of mitigation measures with regard to less than significant impacts (Public Resources Code section 21100; CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4.).
Biological Resources
1. “The IS/MND is inadequate in its characterization of the existing environmental setting as it relates to wildlife.”
Response:
The commentor indicates that the IS/MND did not address the potential impacts of habitat loss to breeding birds and provides numerical projections of the resulting loss of fledglings per year and the lost capacity. First, CEQA standards of significance do not include a specific standard of significance for the loss of bird breeding habitat. Instead, the loss of breeding habitat is generally included within the standard of significant for impacts on special status species. That said, Dr.
Smallwood’s projections assume there is, in fact, breeding habitat for a wide range of avian species within the Study Area. The biological study performed by Precision Engineering, Inc, that served as the basis for the IS/MND indicates that the Study Area does not support any shrubs or trees. The lack of suitable nesting habitat (shrubs or trees) precludes nesting by many bird species. Thus, projections of the potential future loss of successful nesting by species that require shrubs or trees for nesting is not applicable to this Study Area, regardless of all the statistical analysis presented that is, purportedly, designed to prove otherwise.
It should be noted that Dr. Smallwood’s biological comments implies that the Biological Assessment prepared by Precision Civil Engineering, failed to detect many bird species that could be present.
Close examination of the ebird list of species (found in Dr. Smallwood’s report) of the extensive list of roughly 75 bird species listed, only roughly 10 were actually observed onsite. The remaining species were either flying by the site or perched someone near the site. All the remaining species are either known to occur “in the region” or were observed “nearby”. A similar result could be found in any urbanized park or housing complex. A nearby occurrence is not indicative of occurrence within the Study Area. Dr. Smallwood list includes species such as American white pelican, golden eagle, Peregrine falcon, long-billed curlew – species that would not be present because of the lack of suitable habitat. Including these species in the March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 14 comment letter is, at best, simply an attempt to cast the widest net to create the impression that the site support high quality or unique habitat, when in fact, the site habitat is farmland, annually disked, and provides bird habitat, but little in the way of nesting habitat.
The commentor implies that biological assessment is deficiency because it did not include a query of the eBird database. The eBird database is a database used by the birding community but is not typically used as part of CEQA analysis. Certainly, as implied by the commentor, failure to query eBird is not in any way a deficit or flaw in the biological impact assessment since the database is not site specific but simply allows for characterization of the avian community on a regional basis only.
CEQA also does not factor into the impact assessment any birds, whether special status or not, that are simply observed flying in the area, especially birds that soar during flight, such as raptors and vultures. To suggest that because a bird flies in the airspace above a project site, the development of the site will impact the bird is beyond ludicrous. Certainly, any bird species could use a any site temporarily for resting or foraging, but that temporal use does not constitute a direct impact unless the temporal use is for nesting.
The species that could be present and that nest on the upland ground within this region primarily includes killdeer and burrowing owl. The Study Area’s recurring disturbance likely limits the suitability of the site for nesting, as does the presence of potential predators (domestic cats as noted by Dr. Smallwood). Nonetheless, the IS/MND includes mitigation to minimize the potential effect on ground nesting birds, specifically burrowing owl (a species of concern), by requiring a preconstruction survey and additional mitigation if nesting burrowing owl is present.
The commentor correctly indicates that, at a minimum, the pre-construction survey should be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Burrowing Owl Survey and Mitigation Guidelines (California Burrowing Owl Consortium, April 1993).
The commentor indicates that since the IS/MND did not address habitat loss that will affect bird species, the City must prepare an EIR (based on a fair argument).
The IS/MND does address habitat impacts and acknowledges habitat loss, but the finding is that the loss does not result in “substantial adverse effect” based on both the quality of the habitat, habitat unit, and impacts on special status species.
As a result, the impact does not rise to the level of significance under CEQA.
CEQA does not require a finding of significance for impacts that are speculative based, especially those based on flawed assumptions.
2. “The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze potential biological impacts to wildlife.” a. “Habitat Loss”
Response:
March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 15 The commentor indicates that the IS/MND did not address the potential impacts of habitat loss to breeding birds and provides numerical projections of the resulting loss of fledglings per year and the lost capacity. These concerns are addressed above under Comment 1.
b. “Wildlife Movement”
Response:
The commentor indicates that the IS/MND improperly dismisses the Project’s potential to impact wildlife movement because it relies on a flawed reading of the CEQA standard that focuses on the presence of a wildlife corridor. The commentor asserts that the site is “critically important for wildlife movement” because it is within an area of diminishing open space. While it is acknowledged that site development will, in fact, impede movement of native wildlife species (those that currently reside on the site), that loss of movement is not substantial given the species will relocate to another site. This comment does correctly suggest that urbanization results in a cumulative impacts on wildlife movement those cumulative impacts were taken into consideration by the City of Madera as part of their General Plan Update EIR (2009) and acknowledged that the planned development could result in impacts to wildlife movement (Impact 10.4.4 of the EIR) within the planning area, but implementation of adopted policies would minimize the impact. The Study Area is located within a commercial/industrial zone along a major freeway (Highway 99) that is consistent with those General Plan policies and avoids removal of habitat near or adjacent to sensitive areas (waterways) that are critically important for wildlife movement.
c. “Wildlife Mortality”
Response:
The commentor suggests that the proposed security fencing is designed to cause harm to wildlife. While it is certainly possible wildlife could be injured from the fencing, it is as likely possible that the presence of the fencing could protect wildlife from the activities within the proposed cold storage project (movement of equipment and trucks, mechanical fans, etc.). Comparison of the proposed fencing to a “utility-scale solar project” in terms of wildlife injury is disingenuous. The commentor estimates the project would kill 27.4 birds per year. By comparison, in the United States, domestic cats are responsible for the death of 1.3 to 3.7 billion birds per year.
d. “Traffic Impacts to Wildlife”
Response:
March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 16 The commentor provides a plethora of information, data, and statistical analysis regarding the potential impacts of traffic on wildlife. CEQA standards of significance for biological resources does not specifically address impacts to wildlife from traffic generation. Thus, there is no clear standard of significance for evaluation, nor does CEQA require such an analysis. That said, without a doubt, traffic does, unfortunately, result in the loss of wildlife every year but whether the projected loss as a direct result of this project is a significant impact is speculative at best.
e. “Cumulative Impacts”
Response:
Neither the scale of the proposed project nor the anticipated impacts to wildlife or birds warrants preparation of the EIR. The IS/MND’s “interpretation” of the CEQA standards for cumulative impacts is consistent with the City of Madera’s “interpretation” of cumulative impacts used in the General Plan Update EIR. The unfortunate fact that North America has lost nearly a third of its birds over the past half century appears to be more attributable to domestic cats than any other factor.
This is not intended to minimize the potential impacts of the proposed project, but to merely highlight that there are other more injurious factors unrelated to the proposed project to be considered when assessing cumulative loss of birds.
With respect to the IS/MND proposed mitigation (pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl), Dr. Smallwood agrees that the surveys are warranted. However, he advocates for more robust-breeding season detection surveys before the preconstruction surveys are undertaken. The project mitigation should be revised to condition the mitigation measure to indicate that surveys be conducted in accordance with the Burrowing owl survey protocol, as previously discussed.
Noise
1. “The IS/MND contains errors in its references which render it inadequate as an informational document.”
Response:
Two items were raised in this section. First, the Wilson Ihrig proports that “there were corrupted graphics in the Project Description”. In fact, there are no corrupted graphics, but an error in the link for Figure 2-3. Figure 2-3 is still contained in the document, is clear, and not corrupted. Any layperson could easily navigate to the figure, despite the link error.
March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 17 The purported lack of refence to Madera Municipal Code section 3-11.01 (second item) is not relevant. The noise analysis identifies the relevant code section pertaining to the noise analysis (Section 3-11.02). Section 3-11.01 is a generic statement related to unlawful noise. This section also includes a provision on exceptions to the noise ordinance, which is not relevant to the analysis. Including this code section would not change the analysis.
Based on the above, it is clear that there are no significant errors that would require the document to be recirculated or republished.
2. “The thresholds of significance used in the IS/MND are not properly developed and the impact analyses are incomplete.”
Response:
The report clearly defines the thresholds of significance (regulatory setting) applicable to the project. These are provided on pages 3-5 of the technical noise report. The CEQA noise checklist states the following, in regard to the determination of a potential noise impact: “Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?” The report clearly provides these applicable quantifiable local noise standards. Furthermore, in regard to the portion of the comment which states, “must clearly show that the mitigation would eliminate significant effects” WJVA considers this comment to be irrelevant, as the findings of the analysis did not identify any “significant effects” requiring mitigation. The report does state, in the Impact Summary, that a noise impact could occur if truck movements were to occur along the north side of the proposed building(s), during nighttime hours or if best management practices are not followed during project construction. However, the applicant has stated that such truck movements would not occur and could therefore be considered a condition of approval. Likewise, in regard to construction noise, the implementation of the provided best management practices would ensure that there is no impact to noise-sensitive land uses and should be considered as conditions of approval.
In regards to Wilson Ihrig’s “suggestion” that the analysis include either the application of an “absolute noise level” or “relative noise increase” as a method to determine annoyance potential, and provides a comment regarding a provision of the General Plan; WJVA would note that the General Plan states “For the purposes of CEQA analysis, a 5 db increase in CNEL or Ldn noise levels shall be normally considered to be a significant increase in noise.” It should be noted, this provision of the General Plan directly corresponds to questions that is no longer included in the CEQA checklist for noise impact determination. CEQA previously applied the following, in regards to impact determination, and stated that an impact would occur if the project resulted in… “A substantial permanent increase in March 22, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 18 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?” and “A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?” The language in the General Plan clearly states “For the purpose of a CEQA analysis…” as previously jurisdictions would often set their own standards for determining what defines a “significant increase”, to address this CEQA checklist provision.
However, several years ago the CEQA noise check list for noise impact determination was revised, and these check list items were omitted and are no longer applied when determining CEQA compliance. As such, the determination of a “significant increase” is no longer relevant to CEQA. CEQA focuses on compliance with local standards. That said, however, it is important to note that the noise study clearly determines that the project would not result in any increase in noise levels exceeding existing (without project) ambient noise levels. This determination is described multiple times within the technical noise report.
The comments state “a fair argument exists that the Project may have significant noise impacts and an EIR must be prepared to sufficiently address these impacts.” It is the opinion of WJVA that there is no merit to this comment as the noise study comes to a clear conclusion that, with inclusion of the conditions of approval stated in the impact summary of the technical noise report, that the project would not result in noise levels exceeding any applicable local noise standards or so much as result in an increase over existing ambient noise levels at nearby residential land uses/sensitive receptor locations.
Kimber Johnson, Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist Education: Bachelor of Science Degree, Environmental Sciences, California State University, Fresno Technical Expertise:
• Air Quality Analysis to support California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review to support CEQA review • Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis to support
• Climate Change analysis to support NEPA review
• Energy Analysis to support CEQA and NEPA review
• Emission Estimate using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) • Human Health Risk Assessments performed using atmospheric dispersion modeling • American Meteorological Society/ Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)
• California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s EMissions FACtor model (EMFAC) • Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP)
• CARB’s OFFROAD Model and Database
• Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42) • Assisting Applicants through Procedural Processes
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction Emission Model • Extensive knowledge of Rules, Processes, and Compliance Requirements for several air districts throughout California, including San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Kimber Johnson is an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Specialist with over seven years of experience in modeling and the preparation of associated CEQA documentation for development projects. Kimber has performed air quality/GHG analyses and health risk assessments to support CEQA documents using a wide range of models and has extensive knowledge of various quantification methods.
Kimber also prepares other air quality compliance documentation, including Indirect Source Reviews (ISRs), GHG emissions inventories, and dust control plans. Kimber has a thorough understanding of the air quality and GHG emission regulatory requirements of numerous air districts throughout California.
Select Project Experience:
• Mini Storage and Residential Project in Bakersfield, CA—Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Analysis
o JJM prepared the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Technical Analysis for a mini storage and residential project in Bakersfield, CA.
• Convenience Store, Retail, and Gas Station Project in Selma, CA—Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Technical Report o JJM completed the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Technical Report for a Retail and Gas Station project in Selma, CA. The Air Quality Analysis included an HRA to evaluate toxic air containments from gasoline dispensing activities and heavy-heavy duty truck deliveries
• Resource Recovery and Truck Maintenance Facility Project in Antioch, CA—Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk Assessment, and Energy Analysis o JJM prepared the Air Quality, GHG, and Energy analysis for a Resource Recovery and Truck Maintenance Facility Project in Antioch. The project site was located approximately 200 feet from the project site, and the air quality analysis included construction and operational HRAs.
• Truck Parking/Truck Maintenance Projects in Fresno County (Multiple Projects) o JJM has prepared several Air Quality analyses for truck parking and truck maintenance projects that would generate trips from heavy-heavy-duty trucks. JJM appropriately assessed regional and localized impacts to air quality resources from the increase in emissions from these projects. HRAs and/or HRA screening analyses were included. • Construction and Cumulative Health Risk Assessments for a Phased Redevelopment Project
o JJM prepared a standalone construction HRA for a phased residential development that included the redevelopment of affordable multi-family housing. The assessment considered existing and planned sensitive receptors for each phase of construction, taking into account the movement of construction activity and movement of existing and proposed on-site sensitive receptors. The assessment involved over ten scenarios each completed using dispersion modeling. JJM prepared the emission estimates using CalEEMod, proposed and quantified reductions for relevant mitigation measures, completed dispersion modeling using AERMOD, and evaluated health risk impacts for existing and proposed off-site and on-site sensitive receptors for the phased construction activity.
• Other Relevant Project Work Experience
o Prepared Air Quality/GHG/Energy technical analyses for several distribution center, warehouse, and industrial park projects throughout CA*
o Prepared Air Quality/GHG/Energy technical analyses for commercial and industrial projects in the Antelope Valley region of Southern CA*
o Provided Pre-construction Air Quality Permitting Compliance Services for Solar Photovoltaic Projects in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin* o Prepared Air Quality/GHG/Energy technical analyses for several residential, commercial, and mixed used projects throughout CA, including hundreds in the San Joaquin Valley* o Prepared Air Quality, GHG, and Energy technical analyses to support Environment Impact Reports for specific plans and general plan updates* o Assisted in completing updates to GHG Inventories and Climate Action Plans* *Denotes project experience outside of Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting Services References
References available upon request.
Debbie Johnson, Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist Education: Bachelor of Science Degree, Plant Science, California State University, Fresno Technical Expertise:
• Air Quality Analysis to support California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
• Human Health Risk Assessments performed using atmospheric dispersion modeling • California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
• American Meteorological Society/ Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)
• California Air Resources Board (CARB)’s EMissions FACtor model (EMFAC) • Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP)
• CARB’s OFFROAD Model and Database
• Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42) • Assisting Applicants through Procedural Processes
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Road Construction Emission Model • Extensive knowledge of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) Rules, Processes, and Compliance Requirements
Debbie Johnson is an Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist with over 19 years of air quality experience in the public and private sectors with practice in such areas as rule implementation, rule development, criteria pollutant emissions modeling and analysis, and environmental document preparation and review. Debbie has project experience spanning several project types, including infrastructure, linear, transportation, residential, commercial, oil field, and industrial projects. Debbie is experienced in developing and working in multi-discipline project teams and is adept at applying her collaboration skills to produce technically sound and highly defensible air quality analyses to meet the needs of various stakeholders.
Debbie has a strong background in air quality science and possesses extensive knowledge related to air quality analyses and rule compliance for projects in the San Joaquin Valley through her 16-year tenure as an Air Quality Specialist at the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Debbie’s broader experience involves reviewing and commenting on CEQA/NEPA analyses, plan development, rule development, evaluating permit applications, implementing grant and incentive programs, performing air quality modeling and analysis, and organizing and leading interagency meetings.
In 2019, Debbie joined two other environmental professionals to establish Johnson Johnson and Miller Air Quality Consulting Services (JJM). In this capacity Debbie uses her extensive knowledge of environmental matters related to air quality, rule compliance, and CEQA compliance to provide air quality and greenhouse gas analyses for projects across California. Debbie and the team at JJM are skilled in using various emissions quantification methods to estimate emissions and prepare the related environmental review documentation.
Select Project Experience:
• Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Coalinga Heavy Oil Production Facility Steam Generators Project—IS/MND o The SJVAPCD served as the lead agency for the environmental review of the Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Coalinga Heavy Oil Production Facility Steam Generators Project. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and related technical analyses were prepared. The project consisted of installing 18 natural gas-fired steam generators located at three separate project sites that were zoned for agricultural use. Serving as the lead agency’s CEQA contact for the project, Debbie authored serval sections and provided oversight in all aspects of the project. She was responsible for coordinating all activities related to the preparation of the IS/MND and completing the environmental review process, including directing activities to ensure legal defensibility, technical accuracy, and objectivity.
• Herndon Avenue Eastbound Widening from Brawley Avenue to Blythe Avenue—ISR o SJVAPCD reviewed the Air Impact Assessment application and prepared the Indirect Source Review (ISR) for the Herndon Avenue Eastbound Widening from Brawley Avenue to Blythe Avenue project in the City of Fresno. The project included road improvements—including road widening—for an approximately 0.50-mile portion of Herndon Avenue from Brawley Avenue to Blythe Avenue. As the SJVAPCD Air Quality Specialist tasked with completing the ISR for the project, Debbie reviewed and verified project information, completed the air pollutant emissions modeling, prepared the fee estimates, and prepared the documentation necessary to verify and record the project’s compliance with Rule 9510. Debbie also served as the SJVAPCD’s point of contact for the project and was responsible for all coordination and communication related to SJVAPCD’s ISR analysis and approval for the project.
• Highway 198 at 19th in Lemoore—ISR
o As an Air Quality Specialist with SJVAPCD, Debbie completed the ISR for the Highway 198 at 19th transportation project in the City of Lemoore, CA. Debbie coordinated with the California Department of Transportation and the general construction contractor to facilitate the preparation, review, and approval of the ISR in compliance SJVAPCD Rule 9510.
• Heavy-Duty Engine Incentive Program—Administration and Technical Analysis o Debbie performed project administration and provided technical assistance in the SJVAPCD’s Mobile Source Program Section. Debbie was responsible for processing applications, advising applicants, and preparing technical analyses and documentation to support the planning activities of the Mobile Source Program and CEQA Sections of the SJVAPCD. Specific tasks included application processing, educating the public, calculating emission reduction, maintaining databases and spreadsheets, and answering programmatic and technical questions. Debbie’s work related to the Heavy-Duty Engine Program extended to the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure component, the REMOVE Program, and reporting requirements for the Moyer Program. • Fresno Chaffee Zoo – Africa Project—ISR
o As an Air Quality Specialist with SJVAPCD, Debbie completed the ISR for the Fresno Chaffee Zoo – Africa Project in the City of Fresno. Preparation of the ISR involved analyzing project information, completing emissions modeling for construction and operation of the project, preparing fee estimates, preparing documentation necessary for approval, identifying enforcing agencies for proposed reduction measures, and identifying and ensuring compliance with applicable SJVAPCD rules and regulations. • Confidential Client—Construction and Cumulative Health Risk Assessments for a Phased Redevelopment Project
o With JJM, Debbie has assisted in the preparation of various air quality/greenhouse gas, HRA, and energy analyses that were prepared to support CEQA analyses for commercial, residential, mixed‐use, and other land use development projects. A notable project was the preparation of a standalone construction HRA for a phased residential development that included the redevelopment of affordable multi-family housing. The assessment considered existing and planned sensitive receptors for each phase of construction, taking into account the movement of construction activity and movement of existing and proposed on-site sensitive receptors that would be relocated as the project proposed replacing existing occupied multi-family residential buildings with new multifamily residential buildings. The assessment involved over ten scenarios each completed using dispersion modeling. JJM prepared the emission estimates using CalEEMod, proposed and quantified reductions for relevant mitigation measures, completed dispersion modeling using AERMOD, and evaluated health risk impacts for existing and proposed off-site and on-site sensitive receptors for the phased construction activity.
References
Debbie’s references will attest to her responsiveness and ability and willingness to adapt to best serve the needs of various stakeholders. Debbie’s references will also vouch for her demonstrated ability to effectively communicate and present technical information.
Reference Contact Information:
Manuel Salinas, Air Quality Engineer, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 1990 E Gettysburg Ave, Fresno, CA 93726
(559) 230-6000 | [email protected]
Additional references available upon request.
Richard Miller
Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist
979.549.8478
[email protected]
ㅡ
Summary
Richard Miller is an owner of Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting Services and an Air Quality/Climate Change Specialist with three years of experience in air quality and greenhouse gas emission CEQA analysis and modeling for various development projects. Richard has worked on over 40 projects ranging from small-scale residential to large-scale industrial projects to create technically sound and legally defensible environmental documentation pertaining to all facets of AQ/GHG analysis through the use of CalEEMod, AERMOD, and HARP2.
ㅡ
Experience Johnson Johnson & Miller Air Quality Consulting Services Clovis, CA OWNER / AIR QUALITY & CLIMATE CHANGE SPECIALIST June 2019 – Present (November 2021) ● Conducts air quality and greenhouse gas emission CEQA analyses for various development projects ● Models projected construction and operational emissions ● Coordinates with remote, inter-agency team members and stakeholders to create a final product while meeting demanding deadlines
● Efficiently and effectively provides punctual, high-quality quality products to the firm’s clients ● Provides evaluations of criteria pollutant, hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
ㅡ
Education Fresno City College / Associate of Science Degree: Business Administration Fresno, CA
Fresno State University / Bachelor of Arts Degree: Geography Fresno, CA
ㅡ
Relevant Skills
Tools
● Mastery of Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, and Access ● Extensive working knowledge of CalEEMod, AERMOD, HARP2, Adobe Acrobat, Google Earth, Google Apps, and ArcGIS
Other Skills
● Troubleshooting methodologies
● Excellent written and verbal communication skills
● Exemplary professional writing and editing skills
● Extensive presentation and public speaking experience ● Experienced with using computer-mediated communication to effectively work with remote team members
JB
Kathy Kinsland
CISEC, QSP, TOR-QISP
Highlights
• Over 30 years of experience with environmental
review under various state environmental policy
act and NEPA reviews.
• Project Manager for environmental review of an
environmental resources plan for the U.S. Bureau
of Recreation.
• Deputy project manager for a joint state/NEPA
review of a 230-mile natural gas pipeline under the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
• Prepared and implemented a Public Involvement
Program for U.S.Bureau of Reclamation and for
energy development projects in CA.
• Project Manager for preparation of
CEQA.documents for infrastructure projects.
• Assigned to team of specialists working for the
U.S. Army Corps to conduct environmental
reviews for levee restoration following floods or
flood control system throughout the U.S.
• Assigned as Project Manager for NRG's California
Energy Generation Facility Licensing Amendment
Petition and environmental review
• Prepared/coordinated FERC filings for LNG
transmission projects within numerous states.
• Served as Co-chairman for California Storm Water
Quality Association’s (CASQA) Construction
Subcommittee.
• Former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers staff
assigned to Regulatory and Engineering Divisions.
Was selected as a member of the Value
Engineering Team for project reviews.
Relevant Experience
Environmental Review; NEPA/CEQA,
Over the past 30 years, Ms. Kinsland has
managed or assisted in the preparation of
numerous municipal, state and federal
environmental review documents, primarily
for infrastructure projects, ranging from full
EIR/EIS’s to Environmental Assessments and
Mitigated Negative Declarations and
categorical exclusions (ECs). Ms. Kinsland
has served as the project manager or technical
lead in preparation of technical studies as part
of the environmental reviews for residential
land development, land fill expansion, electric
generation and transmission, infrastructure,
and commercial development. Some of her
key projects include the following:
• AADS Landfill Clean Closure (CA CEQA)
• Frontier Communications Expansion Project
(Categorical Exemptions)
• Dry Creek Levee Improvement Project (SAFCA
CEQA)
• Shepherd Avenue Intersection Improvement
Project (City of Clovis, CEQA)
• Roosevelt Regional Landfill Vertical
Expansion (Draft Supplemental EIS
• SMUD/USBR/Arden-Cordova Water Agency
Emergency Water Supply Project
(CEQA/NEPA).
• Tuscarora Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline
Environmental Impact Statement (CA, OR, NV,
CEQA/NEPA)
• Kern County Waste Management, Habitat
Conservation Plan Amendment (CEQA/NEPA)
Education
BS, Aquatic Biology, Chemistry Minor, Eastern Michigan
University, Ypsilanti, MI;
Masters Certificate NEPA (in progress), Utah State University Certifications/Associations
Certified Inspector Sediment & Erosion Control (CISEC- 311) California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA),
Executive Planning Committee and Co-Chair of the
Construction Subcommittee – 2003-2006
Key Positions
Staff scientist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District and Sacramento District;
Manager of Environmental Services Division, RMI/Navigant; Owner/President; Argonaut Ecological, Inc.
Training
Storm Water Pollution Prevention on Construction Sites
Storm Water Pollution Prevention for Transportation
Construction
Advanced Wetland Delineation and Management Training
ARGONAUT A A I
ECOLOGICAL ■ CONSULTING,INC.ri:
2 • Fink Road Landfill, Vertical Expansion Project
(CEQA)
• Animas-LaPlate Dam Removal Project; U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (NEPA).
Construction Monitoring – Stormwater and
Biological
Ms. Kinsland has been part of numerous
Construction Management teams, responsible
for providing pre-construction and
construction phase compliance services to
local municipalities for several roadway,
bridge, and infrastructure projects. Services
provided include preparation of compliance
database and compliance tracking of all permit
conditions, including CEQA MMRP, preconstruction biological surveys; assistance with project permitting; coordination with
regulatory agencies, review of SWPPPs;
development of a CM stormwater verification
compliance program, development and
implementation of worker training programs
for stormwater and sensitive species
protection; stormwater inspections; and
wetland delineations. Some representative
projects include:
• Eight Mile Road/UPRR Grade Separation
Project; Stockton, CA
• Cook Riolo Bridge Replacement Project;
Roseville, CA
• Kammerer Road Widening Project, CA
• Dog Creek Culvert Project, CA.
• Industrial Avenue Bridge Replacement, CA
• Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Auburn Folsom Improvement Project;
Folsom, CA
• Highway 65/Sunset Interchange Project,
Placer County, CA.
• Miramar Naval Base, Pipeline Replacement
• San Pedro Naval Facility, Tank Closure
Land Development and Biological Permitting:
Over the past 25 years Ms. Kinsland has
worked on a variety of land development
projects. She has managed large technical
teams including hydrologist, biologist,
botanists, archaeologists, and geologists. In
addition, she has performed numerous wetland
delineations and habitat assessments
throughout the Central Valley. The services
Ms. Kinsland has provided include the
following:
• Special Status Species Surveys/Habitat
Assessments
• Wetland Delineation & Permitting (Section
404, Section 10, 401 Water Quality
Certification, 1600 Agreements, and
mitigation planning)
• CEQA/NEPA reviews
• Mitigation Monitoring; wetland and habitat
restoration/creation 5-year monitoring
studies
• Habitat Restoration Monitoring, Laguna
Creek Improvement Project, City of
Sacramento, Dog Creek Widening Project
(Clovis), Fancher Creek Relocation Project
(Fresno County Flood Control District)
• Biological Constraints Analysis, NE
Specific Area (3.800 acres) in NE Clovis,
Ca
WALTER J. VAN GRONINGEN
President
WJV Acoustics, Inc.
Experience:
Mr. Van Groningen is the founding consultant of WJV Acoustics, Inc. His technical skills include the prediction and analysis of aircraft, traffic, railroad and construction noise and the evaluation of community noise problems and litigation support. He has prepared technical noise studies for a variety of projects requiring CEQA or NEPA documentation and has developed noise level criteria and implementation programs for addressing noise‐related conflicts and long‐range noise compatibility planning. Mr. Van Groningen has particular expertise in preparing traffic noise assessments for federally funded roadway improvement projects using the Caltrans Protocol. Mr. Van Groningen has also prepared general plan noise elements and noise element updates for several California jurisdictions.
Mr. Van Groningen became involved in community noise control in 2005, when he joined the consulting staff at Brown‐Buntin Associates, Inc. Since that time, he has conducted short‐ and long‐term aircraft noise monitoring and acoustical testing for federally funded aircraft sound insulation programs and conducted and/or managed numerous environmental noise analyses, including the following:
Environmental noise assessments addressing aircraft, traffic, rail, commercial, industrial and construction sources for projects requiring CEQA/NEPA documentation. Many of these studies have involved controversial projects and significant public interest in the agency review process. Aircraft noise analysis and preparation of noise exposure maps and summary reports for Las Vegas McCarran and Reno‐Tahoe International Airports.
Federally funded school and/or residential sound insulation programs for Los Angeles, Reno‐Tahoe, Phoenix Sky Harbor and Anchorage Ted Stevens International Airports. General Plan Noise Elements for numerous California jurisdictions. Acoustical analyses and noise monitoring for numerous mining operations and construction projects.
Professional Affiliations:
Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Member, Acoustical Society of America.
Software Skills and Certifications:
FHWA Traffic Noise Model Certified
FAA Integrated Noise Model (INM)
Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT2B)
Larson Davis Laboratories, AutoCAD, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, SoundPLAN SoundPLAN Software & Noise Modeling Seminar
Education:
B.A. Physical/Environmental Geography, Humboldt State University, 1999. Post Graduate studies in Hydrology, California State University Chico, 1999‐2002. l!I n IH II wjv acoustics .
Blum Collins & Ho, LLP
Attorneys at Law
AON Center
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4880
Los Angeles, California 90017
(213) 572-0400
April 4, 2022
Robert Smith, Senior Planner VIA EMAIL TO:
City of Madera [email protected]
205 West 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
Subject: Comments on Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse MND (SCH NO. 2022030604) Dear Mr. Smith,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse Project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA). Also, GSEJA formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.
1.0 Summary
The project proposes the construction and operation of a two phase industrial warehouse project that will occupy two parcels totaling 30.16 acres. Phase I involves the construction of an approximately 254,016-sf. refrigerated warehouse and storage facility on the parcel identified as APN 013-200-005 and would include a 235,200-sf. warehouse with refrigerated storage area, in addition to an administrative office (4,000 sf.), shipping office (2,204 sf.), and flatbed annex building (12,544 sf.). Phase II would include a 250,000-sf. warehouse and storage facility on the adjoining parcel to the east identified as APN 013-200-004 and would include a ground mount solar PV array. An on-site stormwater retention basin is proposed to be constructed under Phase I and would be sized to accommodate total buildout of the Project.
Robert Smith
April 4, 2022
2.0. Project Description
It is notable that the MND does not include a detailed site plan, floor plan or elevations for Phase II. The basic components of a Planning Application include a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and a project narrative describing the proposed use in detail. The site plan provided in Figure 2-5 does not provide any detailed information such as the earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, site coverage, floor area ratio, etc. The MND has excluded the proposed detailed site plan, floor plans and elevations from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)).
Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as these documents contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand.
Providing thisinformation is vital asthe Air Quality Appendix states “Based on applicant-provided information, cut and fill and is expected to balance on-site.” There is no method for public verification of this anecdotal statement in the MND. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review including a grading plan for public verification of earthwork quantities.
Additionally, the project site is described throughout the MND as vacant with no improvements or structures on the site. However, several aerial images of the project site throughout its Appendices, such as Figure 2: Project Vicinity within the Noise Appendix depict at least four residentialstructures on the north side of the projectsite with access from Boles Street. Demolition of the onsite residential structures is implementation of the proposed project prior to CEQA review and alters the environmental setting. Removing these structures required site preparation, demolition, and hauling trips that are not analyzed in the MND. An EIR must be prepared to accurately analyze the potentially significant impacts, including those related to project implementation prior to CEQA review.
Further, Figure 2-5 Site Plan depicts a building that is not included for analysis in the MND. On the east side of the Phase I building, a building called “ready roast” is identified as “NIC”, assumed to stand for “not in contract/not included”. Figure 2-6 Phase I Site Plan depicts the ready roast building as a landscape area. Additionally, Figure 2-5 states that the project will extend Condor Road for vehicle access to the project site from Aviation Drive. The MND does not include this road extension for analysis, which is vital in the Land Use and Planning analysis and any growth inducement analysis. Both these items are components of the proposed project that is not included for analysis. The MND does not accurately or adequately describe the project, meaning “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378).
Robert Smith
April 4, 2022
CEQA § 15165 - Multiple and Phased Projects requires that “Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168.” The MND misleads the public and decision makers by circumventing adequate and accurate environmental analysis for the whole of the action to include the ready roast facility and extension of Condor Road to Aviation Drive. A program EIR must be prepared which accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the project into separate, smaller development projects or development areas to present unduly low environmental impacts.
4.3 Air Quality, 4.6 Energy, and 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The MND does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.01, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s censustract (6039000503) ranks worse than 78% of the rest of the state overall in pollution burden. The surrounding community, including residences to the southeast, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than other census tracts in many pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen.
For example, the project census tract ranks in the 75th percentile for ozone burden and 79th percentile for PM 2.5 burden, which are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area.
The census tract ranks in the 91st percentile for groundwater threats. People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes2. The census tract ranksin the 83rd percentile for hazardous waste impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people3. The census tract ranks in the 88th percentile for impacts from pesticides. Exposure to high levels of some pesticides can cause illness immediately or conditions such as birth defects or cancer later in life4. The census tract ranks in the 84th percentile for impacts from toxic releases. Chemicals given off by toxic facilities can be detected in the air of nearby communities and people living near facilities may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident5. 1 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 2 OEHHA Groundwater Threats https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/groundwater-threats 3 OEHHA Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities 4 OEHHA Pesticides https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/pesticide-use 5 OEHHA Toxic Releases https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/toxic-releases-facilities Robert Smith
April 4, 2022
Further, the census tract is a diverse community including 59% Hispanic, 8.9% Asian-American, and 2.5% African-American residents, which are especially vulnerable to the impacts of pollution. The community has a high rate of low educational attainment, meaning 82% of the census tract over age 25 has not attained a high school diploma, which is an indication that they may lack health insurance or access to medical care. Medical care is vital for this census tract as it ranks in the 100th percentile (highest percentile) for incidence of cardiovascular disease and 91st percentile for incidence of low birth weights. The community also has a high rate of linguistic isolation, meaning 63% of the census tract speaks little to no English.
Additionally, the project’s census tract (6039000503) and the adjacent census tracts (6039000506, 6039000202, 6039000201, 6039000400, 6039001000, 6039000502, 6039000800, and 6039000602) are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities6, which is not discussed or presented for analysis in the MND.
The State of California lists three approved energy compliance modeling softwares7 for nonresidential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod energy calculations in the MND do not comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under reports the project’s potentially significant GHG and Energy impacts to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling in one of the approved software types must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not one of the approved softwares.
It must also be noted that Madera is not listed as a jurisdiction with local energy standards approved by the CA Energy Commission8. According to the CA Energy Commission, “Local jurisdictions are required to apply to the Energy Commission for approval, documenting the supporting analysis for how the local government has determined that their proposed Standards will save more energy than the current statewide Standards and the basis of the local government s determination that the local standards are cost-effective.” Therefore, compliance with the City’s General Plan does not comply with CA Energy Commission standards or AB 32/SB 32. The MND is misleading to the 6 OEHHA SB 535 Census Tracts https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535 7 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Approved Computer Compliance Programs, California Energy Commission. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energyefficiency-standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency-2 8 Local Ordinances Exceeding the 2019 Energy Code, California Energy Commission https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019- building-energy-efficiency-3
Robert Smith
April 4, 2022
public and decision makers by stating compliance with these standards when the local jurisdiction standards have not been approved by the CA Energy Commission. An EIR must be prepared with adequate analysis of project impacts utilizing an approved modeling software in order to be a reliable informational document in compliance with CEQA.
Additionally, the MND utilizes uncertain language in discussing energy impacts. The MND concludes that “the results of the analyses do not rise to a level of significance given the nature of the Project (i.e., non-residential) and the Project s required compliance with various energy efficiency regulations and policies including CALGreen, Title 24 (e.g., Lighting Power Density requirements), the General Plan, California Code of Regulations (e.g., Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and CARB (e.g., Airborne Toxic Control Measure). Thus, through compliance, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and a less than significant impact would occur.” As noted above, the project has not demonstrated compliance with Title 24 and compliance with General Plan measures is not an approved standard by the CA Energy Commission. The MND does not specify a level of significance threshold that would quantify a significant impact. An EIR must be prepared to provide an adequate analysis of the project’s GHG and Energy impacts in compliance with CEQA.
4.11 Land Use and Planning
The MND does not provide a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies. An EIR must be prepared that includes a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to the following:
Policy CI-22: The City shall seek to maintain Level of Service (LOS) C at all times on all roadways and intersections in Madera.
Goal CON-11 Air quality that meets or exceeds all state and federal standards.
Goal CON-12 Meet or exceed all current and future state-mandated targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Policy CON-29 The City shall require new air pollution point sources (such as, but not limited to, industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities) to be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors. “Adequate distance” will be based on site-specific conditions, the type and location of sensitive receptors, on the types and amounts of potential toxic emissions, and other factors.
Robert Smith
April 4, 2022
The MND does not provide any consistency analysis with the Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) adopted 2018 RTP/SCS9. Due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence, as noted throughout this comment letter and attachments, the proposed project has signifiant potential for inconsistency with Goal 5 to maintain the efficiency, safety, and security of the region s transportation system, Goal 9 to protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation, Strategy 5 to Enhance the Environment: the transportation system improves the environment through energy conservation, improving the quality of life, and promoting consistency between transportation improvements, planned growth, economic development, and environmental justice issues, Objective 14 to improve and maintain an integrated transportation network that reduces congestion and minimizes safety issues, and Objective 41 to avoid disproportionately high adverse environmental impacts upon low-income individuals, the elderly, persons with disabilities or minority populations consistent with Title VI regulations. An EIR must be prepared to include accurate Air Quality/HRA, Energy, and GHG modeling and provide an analysis of potential inconsistency with the 2018 RTP/SCS document.
4.14 Population and Housing
The MND concludes that “while the Project would generate employment (i.e., nine (9) employees), it is not at a level that could induce population growth,” resulting in a less than significant impact.
The MND does not provide a source methodology for its determination that the project will generate 9 employees. There is also no calculation of the employees generated by the construction of the project. The U.S. Energy Information Administration10 provides the following applicable employment generation rate for refrigerated warehouses:
Any Refrigeration: 1 employee per 1,049 square feet
Applying this ratio results in the following calculation:
Phase 1: 254,016 sf / 1,049 = 243
Phase 2: 250,000 sf/ 1,049 = 239
Total: 482 employees
Table 1-2: Madera County Development Projections-2010, 2020, 2035, and 2042 within MCTC’s RTP/SCS notes that the City will add 6,746 jobs and 22,992 residents between 2020 - 2042. 9 MCTC 2018 RTP/SCS
https://www.maderactc.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/transportation/page/5651/mctc_2018_rtp_am_1_techni cal_revision.pdf 10 US EIA Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Table B1: Summary table: total and means of floorspace, number of workers, and hours of operation, 2018 https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2018/bc/html/b1.php Robert Smith
April 4, 2022
Utilizing the U.S. EIA calculation of 482 employees, the project represents 7.14% of the City’s job growth 2.09% of the population growth from 2020 - 2042. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment and/or population over 22 years represents a significant amount of growth. An EIR must be prepared to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2020 and projects “in the pipeline” to determine if the project will exceed MCTC's employment growth forecast for the City. This is vital as the proposed ground mounted solar PV array (solar farm) in phase two of the project will also generate employees that have not been quantified. Additionally, an EIR must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions in order to provide an accurate environmental analysis.
As noted above, at least four residential structures on the north side of the project site with access from Boles Street were demolished prior to CEQA review. An EIR must be prepared that analyzes the need for replacement housing and compliance with SB 330: Housing Crisis Act of 2019.
4.17 Transportation
The MND excludes medium and heavy truck trips from the VMT analysis. The MND states that, “Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, ‘vehicle miles traveled refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The term automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Thus, trips associated with large trucks are excluded from the VMT analysis and only employee and customer trips must be considered for VMT analysis.without providing a statutory source.” CEQA Guidelines do not provide a definition of the term “automobile.” The MND sources the OPR s 2018 Technical Advisory11 which provides a definition of “automobile” stating that “here, the term automobile” refers to onroad passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks.” However, the purpose of the OPR Technical Advisory document is purely advisory, stating in its introduction:
“The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice.”
The OPR document is not a legal interpretation, court decision, or amendment to the CEQA statute that clarifies the definition of automobile. The term “automobile” is not defined in the CEQA statute and application of the OPR interpretation is speculative and does not provide an analysis 11 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf Robert Smith
April 4, 2022
of the “worst-case scenario” for environmental impacts. Widespread public understanding and perception indicates that trucks, including medium and heavy-duty trucks associated with the industrial nature of warehouse operations, are automobiles. An EIR must be prepared to remove this misleading information (including the erroneous statement that CEQA Guidelines define the term “automobile”) and include all truck activity, including medium and heavy trucks, for quantified VMT analysis. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of medium/heavy truck/trailer VMT due to traveling from large regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Table 4.2 Trip Summary of the Air Quality Appendix CalEEMod output sheets indicates that the project will generate approximately 998 average daily trips for passenger cars, resulting 2,915,196 annual VMT (2,915,196 / 365 days = 7,986 daily total VMT). The project will generate approximately 70 average daily trips for trucks, resulting 1,123,297 annual VMT (1,123,297 / 365 days = 3,077 daily total VMT). This is exponentially higher than the TAZ VMTs reported in the MND. The project’s truck/trailer activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude the truck/trailer activity from VMT analysis. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer activity to adequately and accurately analyze the potentially significant project transportation impacts.
Additionally, the MND has not provided a level of service (LOS) analysis for the proposed project which is required by the City’s General Plan Policy CI-22. An EIR must be prepared with a Traffic Impact Analysis that analyzes LOS impacts in order to comply with the General Plan.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the MND is flawed and an EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and circulated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877.
Sincerely,
Gary Ho
Blum Collins and Ho, LLP
1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Via Email
April 7, 2022
Robert Gran Jr., Chairperson
City of Madera Planning Commission
205 W. 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
Robert Smith, Senior Planner
City of Madera
205 W. 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
[email protected]
RE: Response to Comment Letter received from Blum Collins & Ho LLP on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2021-41
Dear Chairperson Robert Gran Jr. and Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of the City of Madera, Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) has prepared the following letter in response to the comment letter received from Blum Collins & Ho LLP on April 4, 2022, about the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2021-41.
Comments received from Blum Collins & Ho LLP are focused on the Project Description, impacts related to Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Land Use and Planning, and Transportation. Therefore, the responses on the following pages are concentrated on these section and impact areas.
Project Description
Comment #1: “It is notable that the MND does not include a detailed site plan, floor plan or elevations for Phase II. The basic components of a Planning Application include a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and a project narrative describing the proposed use in detail. The site plan provided in Figure 2-5 does not provide any detailed information such as the earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, site coverage, floor area ratio, etc. The MND has excluded the proposed detailed site plan, floor plans and elevations from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as these documents contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand.” Response to Comment #1: Phase II of the proposed project is not currently being entitled through site plan review. Only Phase I is proposed for approval. According to Laurel Heights Improvement Association v Regents of University of California (1988) ~,mbu~Jtt"'
--.Q.Yl_L ENGll\:EERING~
April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 2 47 Cal. 3d 376, for a phased development project, even if details about future phases are not known, future phases must be included in the project description if they are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial phase and will significantly change the initial project or its impacts. Thus, Phase II was analyzed since it is a known, future phase, but project specific details regarding the project (including floor plans and elevations) are not currently available for this phase.
Comment #2: “Providing this information is vital as the Air Quality Appendix states “Based on applicant-provided information, cut and fill and is expected to balance on-site.” There is no method for public verification of this anecdotal statement in the MND. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review including a grading plan for public verification of earthwork quantities.”
Response to Comment #2: An EIR is not required to verify earthwork quantities. The information provided was prepared by the project Civil Engineer and was an accurate representation of what was known at the time of the analysis. It is not typical to have a grading plan completed at the time of preparation of an initial study.
Comment #3: “Additionally, the project site is described throughout the MND as vacant with no improvements or structures on the site. However, several aerial images of the project site throughout its Appendices, such as Figure 2: Project Vicinity within the Noise Appendix depict at least four residential structures on the north side of the project site with access from Boles Street. Demolition of the onsite residential structures is implementation of the proposed project prior to CEQA review and alters the environmental setting. Removing these structures required site preparation, demolition, and hauling trips that are not analyzed in the MND. An EIR must be prepared to accurately analyze the potentially significant impacts, including those related to project implementation prior to CEQA review.” Response to Comment #3: This is an incorrect statement. The project does not propose the demolition of any residential structures.
Comment #4: “Further, Figure 2-5 Site Plan depicts a building that is not included for analysis in the MND. On the east side of the Phase I building, a building called “ready roast” is identified as “NIC”, assumed to stand for “not in contract/not included”. Figure 2-6 Phase I Site Plan depicts the ready roast building as a landscape area. “
Response to Comment #4: This is an incorrect statement. The site plan depicts this “Ready Roast” building across the future Condor Road alignment on both Figures 2-5 and 2-6.
April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 3 Comment #5: “Additionally, Figure 2-5 states that the project will extend Condor Road for vehicle access to the project site from Aviation Drive. The MND does not include this road extension for analysis, which is vital in the Land Use and Planning analysis and any growth inducement analysis. Both these items are components of the proposed project that is not included for analysis. The MND does not accurately or adequately describe the project, meaning “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378).”
Response to Comment #5: This is an incorrect statement. On page 2-8, under Project Setting, it states that “Condor Road is proposed to be extended south to Aviation Drive, past parcels identified as APNs 013-200-12 and 013-200-13.” The extension of Condor Road is also discussed on page 2-9 under Site Circulation and Parking.
Comment #6: “CEQA § 15165 - Multiple and Phased Projects requires that “Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168.” The MND misleads the public and decision makers by circumventing adequate and accurate environmental analysis for the whole of the action to include the ready roast facility and extension of Condor Road to Aviation Drive. A program EIR must be prepared which accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the project into separate, smaller development projects or development areas to present unduly low environmental impacts.”
Response to Comment #6: As described above, the whole of the project (proposed and known) is included in Chapter 2 (Project Description) of the MND. An EIR is not required given that all impacts have been determined to be less than significant with mitigation imposed.
Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Comment #7: “The MND does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.01, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s census tract (6039000503) ranks worse than 78% of the rest of the state overall in pollution burden. The surrounding community, including residences to the southeast, bears the April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 4 impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than other census tracts in many pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 75th percentile for ozone burden and 79th percentile for PM 2.5 burden, which are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area.”
Response to Comment #7: A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project. As described on page 4-16 of the IS/MND, The SJVAPCD’s 2015 GAMAQI does not currently recommend analysis of TAC emissions from project construction activities, but instead focuses on projects with operational emissions that would expose sensitive receptors over a typical lifetime of 70 years. In addition, the most intense construction activities of the project’s construction would occur during site preparation and grading phases over a short period.
There are no conditions unique to the project site that would require more intense construction activity compared to typical development. Examples of situations that would warrant closer scrutiny may include sites that would require extensive excavation and hauling due to existing site conditions. In addition, the project screened out of needing to complete a more refined analysis to determine the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACS during project construction based on the screening analysis summarized on page 4-15 of the IS/MND.
Because construction is short-term, it is appropriate to use the localized screening analysis to determine if a more refined analysis is necessary to determine the project’s potential to exposure sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs during the construction period. It is common for PM2.5 or PM10 to be used as a proxy for diesel particulate matter (DPM). As shown on page 4-15 of the IS/MND, the project’s maximum on-site daily emissions of PM would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s 100- pounds-per day screening thresholds for either PM2.5 or PM10. Based on this information, coupled with the proposed project’s anticipated construction schedule, it can be concluded that the health risks resulting from construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s applicable thresholds.
Comment #8: “The census tract ranks in the 91st percentile for groundwater threats.
People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes2. The census tract ranks in the 83rd percentile for hazardous waste impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people3. The census tract ranks in the 88th percentile for impacts from pesticides. Exposure to high levels of some pesticides can cause illness immediately April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 5 or conditions such as birth defects or cancer later in life4. The census tract ranks in the 84th percentile for impacts from toxic releases. Chemicals given off by toxic facilities can be detected in the air of nearby communities and people living near facilities may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident.” Response to Comment #8: The project will not negatively impact groundwater as the project will comply with all regulations and standards and is connecting to City water and wastewater systems. The proposed project is not a “toxic” facility. An Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum was prepared for the project to evaluate whether the estimated criteria air pollutant, ozone precursor, toxic air contaminant (TAC), and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from construction and/or operation of the proposed Facility would cause significant impacts to air or GHG resources. The methodology followed the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for the quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources. The GHG Analysis follows and the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The evaluation found the impacts to be less than significant.
Comment #9: “Additionally, the project’s census tract and the adjacent census tracts are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities6, which is not discussed or presented for analysis in the MND.”
Response to Comment #9: Senate Bill (SB) 535 is not related to CEQA. SB 535 directed that at least a quarter of the proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities and at least 10 percent of the funds go to projects located within those communities.1 Comment #10: “The State of California lists three approved energy compliance modeling softwares7 for non- residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod energy calculations in the MND do not comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under reports the project’s potentially significant GHG and Energy impacts to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling in one of the approved software types must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project’s 1 https://calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/
April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 6 potentially significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not one of the approved softwares.” Response to Comment #10: Energy modeling is not required to analyze project energy impacts under CEQA.
Comment #11: “It must also be noted that Madera is not listed as a jurisdiction with local energy standards approved by the CA Energy Commission8. According to the CA Energy Commission, “Local jurisdictions are required to apply to the Energy Commission for approval, documenting the supporting analysis for how the local government has determined that their proposed Standards will save more energy than the current statewide Standards and the basis of the local government s determination that the local standards are cost-effective.” Therefore, compliance with the City’s General Plan does not comply with CA Energy Commission standards or AB 32/SB 32. The MND is misleading to the public and decision makers by stating compliance with these standards when the local jurisdiction standards have not been approved by the CA Energy Commission. An EIR must be prepared with adequate analysis of project impacts utilizing an approved modeling software in order to be a reliable informational document in compliance with CEQA.”
Response to Comment #11: The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) are the standards of the CA Energy Commission. The “Local Ordinance Exceeding the 2019 Energy Code”, or local energy standards approved by the CA Energy Commission, are only applicable to “local jurisdictions wishing to enforce locally adopted energy standards”. Since the City of Madera adopts the Energy Code as is, the Project is subject to the Energy Code standards, thus is compliant with CA Energy Commission standards. The Project has been reviewed for compliance with the Energy Code through the entitlement process and will be further reviewed for compliance during the building permit process.
Comment #12: “Additionally, the MND utilizes uncertain language in discussing energy impacts. The MND concludes that “the results of the analyses do not rise to a level of significance given the nature of the Project (i.e., non-residential) and the Project’s required compliance with various energy efficiency regulations and policies including CALGreen, Title 24 (e.g., Lighting Power Density requirements), the General Plan, California Code of Regulations (e.g., Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and CARB (e.g., Airborne Toxic Control Measure).
Thus, through compliance, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and a less than significant impact would occur.” As noted above, the project has not demonstrated compliance with Title 24 and compliance with General Plan measures is not an approved standard by the CA Energy Commission. The MND does not specify a level of significance threshold that would quantify a significant impact. An EIR April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 7 must be prepared to provide an adequate analysis of the project’s GHG and Energy impacts in compliance with CEQA.”
Response to Comment #12: According to Appendix F: Energy Conservation of the CEQA Guidelines, energy impacts shall be considered to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. In other words, a quantitative analysis is not required under CEQA. Further, according to Appendix F, consideration of energy impacts may include the degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. Thus, it is appropriate to include compliance with various energy efficiency regulations and policies. As discussed above, the Project is compliant with the Title 24 Energy Code, which is the CA Energy Commission’s standards. In addition, project measures, including the planned installation of solar, were discussed to demonstrate that not only will the project comply with energy efficiency standards, but that the project will include an energy generation component, further demonstrating that the project, as proposed, would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Land Use and Planning
Comment #13: “The MND does not provide a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies. An EIR must be prepared that includes a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to the following:” Response to Comment #13: CEQA does not mandate that the initial study list every general plan policy to demonstrate project compliance. The project was reviewed against general plan policies and determined to be consistent. Below are responses to specific policies that were identified in the comment letter.
Policy CI-22: The City shall seek to maintain Level of Service (LOS) C at all times on all roadways and intersections in Madera.
According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, “Even if a general plan contains an LOS standard and a project is found to exceed that standard, that conflict should not be analyzed under CEQA. CEQA is focused on planning conflicts that lead to environmental impacts. (The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883; see, e.g., Appendix G, IX(b) [asking whether the project will “Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 8 environmental effect?”].) Auto delay, on its own, is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099(b)(2).)” 2 Goal CON-11 Air quality that meets or exceeds all state and federal standards.
As mentioned above, an Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum was prepared for the project to evaluate whether the estimated criteria air pollutant, ozone precursor, toxic air contaminant (TAC), and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from construction and/or operation of the project would cause significant impacts to air or GHG resources. The methodology followed the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for the quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources. The GHG Analysis follows and the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The evaluation found the impacts to be less than significant. This analysis and report demonstrate that the project is in compliance with all state and federal air quality standards.
Goal CON-12 Meet or exceed all current and future state-mandated targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
The project complies with this General Plan Policy. A greenhouse gas analysis was prepared for the project, as mentioned above. This study, along with the related impact assessment contained in the MND (Section 4.8.2 on the MND document) demonstrate that the project meets or exceeds all current and future state-mandated targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Policy CON-29 The City shall require new air pollution point sources (such as, but not limited to, industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities) to be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors. “Adequate distance” will be based on site-specific conditions, the type and location of sensitive receptors, on the types and amounts of potential toxic emissions, and other factors.
The project complies with this General Plan Policy given that the Project is well below the SJVAPCD thresholds and is thus not considered a new air pollution point source. 2 https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html, Access on 4-7-22 April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 9 Comment #14: “The MND does not provide any consistency analysis with the Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) adopted 2018 RTP/SCS9. Due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence, as noted throughout this comment letter and attachments, the proposed project has significant potential for inconsistency with Goal 5 to maintain the efficiency, safety, and security of the region’s transportation system, Goal 9 to protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation, Strategy 5 to Enhance the Environment: the transportation system improves the environment through energy conservation, improving the quality of life, and promoting consistency between transportation improvements, planned growth, economic development, and environmental justice issues, Objective 14 to improve and maintain an integrated transportation network that reduces congestion and minimizes safety issues, and Objective 41 to avoid disproportionately high adverse environmental impacts upon lowincome individuals, the elderly, persons with disabilities or minority populations consistent with Title VI regulations. An EIR must be prepared to include accurate Air Quality/HRA, Energy, and GHG modeling and provide an analysis of potential inconsistency with the 2018 RTP/SCS document.”
Response to Comment #14: Goals of the RTP/SCS are “broad policy statements that describe the purpose of the plan”, which do not specify actions for compliance. In addition, the RTP/SCS is not designed to be implemented at the project level, and compliance with the city’s municipal code and General Plan would provide compliance with the RTP/SCS. That said, the Project does not affect the region’s transportation system since it does not propose new or alternations to existing regional transportation networks, such as state routes or public transit (compliance with Goal 5) and the Project proposes sidewalks, which would encourage active transportation such as bicycling and walking (compliance with Goal 9, Strategy 5). The Project was review by the city’s traffic department which provided conditions to ensure the traffic safety (compliance with Objective 14). The ISMND did not find environmentally significant impacts in the areas of impact analyzed (compliance with Objective 41).
Population and Housing
Comment # 15: “The MND concludes that “while the Project would generate employment (i.e., nine (9) employees), it is not at a level that could induce population growth,” resulting in a less than significant impact. The MND does not provide a source methodology for its determination that the project will generate 9 employees. There is also no calculation of the employees generated by the construction of the project…” .
April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 10 Response to Comment #15: Project employment numbers were determined by the applicant’s operational statement, which is a standard methodology. Employment generated by project construction will be temporary and thus it is reasonable to conclude that the construction of a project of this size will not “Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)”.
Comment #16: “As noted above, at least four residential structures on the north side of the project site with access from Boles Street were demolished prior to CEQA review. An EIR must be prepared that analyzes the need for replacement housing and compliance with SB 330:
Housing Crisis Act of 2019.”
Response to Comment #16: Homes are not proposed to be demolished.
Transportation
Comment #17: “The MND excludes medium and heavy truck trips from the VMT analysis. The MND states that, “Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, ‘vehicle miles traveled refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The term automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Thus, trips associated with large trucks are excluded from the VMT analysis and only employee and customer trips must be considered for VMT analysis without providing a statutory source.” CEQA Guidelines do not provide a definition of the term “automobile.” The MND sources the OPR s 2018 Technical Advisory which provides a definition of “automobile” stating that “here, the term automobile” refers to on- road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks.” However, the purpose of the OPR Technical Advisory document is purely advisory, stating in its introduction:
“The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice”
The OPR document is not a legal interpretation, court decision, or amendment to the CEQA statute that clarifies the definition of automobile. The term “automobile” is not defined in the CEQA statute and application of the OPR interpretation is speculative and does not provide an analysis of the “worst-case scenario” for environmental impacts. Widespread public understanding and perception indicates that trucks, including medium and heavy-duty trucks associated with the industrial nature of warehouse operations, are automobiles. An EIR must April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 11 be prepared to remove this misleading information (including the erroneous statement that CEQA Guidelines define the term “automobile”) and include all truck activity, including medium and heavy trucks, for quantified VMT analysis. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of medium/heavy truck/trailer VMT due to traveling from large regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Table 4.2 Trip Summary of the Air Quality Appendix CalEEMod output sheets indicates that the project will generate approximately 998 average daily trips for passenger cars, resulting 2,915,196 annual VMT (2,915,196 / 365 days = 7,986 daily total VMT). The project will generate approximately 70 average daily trips for trucks, resulting 1,123,297 annual VMT (1,123,297 / 365 days = 3,077 daily total VMT). This is exponentially higher than the TAZ VMTs reported in the MND. The project’s truck/trailer activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude the truck/trailer activity from VMT analysis. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer activity to adequately and accurately analyze the potentially significant project transportation impacts.
Response to Comment #17: A VMT Analysis was prepared for the project which indicates that the project screens out based on two separate screening thresholds. “Screening out” signifies that the project will have a less than significant impact. This analysis is provided in Appendix E of the MND and included (partially) below for reference:
Screening Threshold for Small Projects (110 Daily Trips or Less) Approximately nine (9) employees and two (2) customers are expected to work at and/or visit the facility per day. Assuming one (1) in and one (1) out trip per day, the total average daily trips (ADT) made by automobiles would be 22 total per day. Thus, based on the expected customers or drivers resulting from the Project, passenger vehicles can be expected to generate a total of 22 ADTs per day. As such, total ADTs for the Project would be significantly less than the 110 ADT threshold. Even if truck trips are included in the analysis (which should be excluded based on the OPR Technical Advisory), the project would still generate well under 110 ADTs.
Map-Based Screening
The Madera County Transportation Commission has established a screening map to determine if projects impacts related to VMT can be determined less than significant based on proposed use and project location. The map utilized the Madera County Travel Demand Model. According to the VMT Baseline Table3, “The SB743 VMT Tool can be used to calculate VMT per capita by TAZ for a residential development project, 3 https://www.maderactc.org/transportation/page/vehicle-miles-traveled-resources Accessed February 1, 2022 April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 12 or VMT per job by (Transportation Analysis Zone) TAZ for an office development project for SB743 analysis using the MCTC Model outputs. The Madera County subregional baseline VMT per capita/job for the selected TAZ will also be reported for screening purposes.”
According to the above-mentioned document, “VMT per job were generated by homebased work (HW) trips at the attraction ends. Thus, for work VMT we summed up all inbound HW trips to each internal TAZ. The origin-destination (O-D) distances were skimmed off the highway network between each O-D pair in the model including gateway TAZs. For the IX/XI trips, external average trip lengths, per gateway, were added to the skimmed O-D distances. The product of total HW trips and the total O-D distance was the work VMT for that TAZ. The baseline VMT per job for an air basin was calculated by dividing the total work VMT by the total jobs in that air basin.” VRPA, the traffic consultant who assisted with the effort has indicated that this type of project (Amond World Cold Storage project) can use the VMT/employee map for industrial, office, or any other use that is employment related.
According to the screening map (see Figure 1 below), the proposed project is located in Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) 289. TAZ 289 has a total of 10,533 work/employment related vehicle miles traveled with a current employment population of 1,022. This is equivalent to 10.31 VMTs per job, which is more than 15% below the County Average of 16.9 VMTs per job. Given that this is below the identified threshold of significance, it can be determined that a less than significant impact would occur and the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (b).
April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 13 Figure 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Map
Statement of Finding
The Project would have a less-than-significant impact for any net increase in total VMT and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). No mitigation measures are required.
,
Comment #18: Additionally, the MND has not provided a level of service (LOS) analysis for the proposed project which is required by the City’s General Plan Policy CI-22. An EIR must be prepared with a Traffic Impact Analysis that analyzes LOS impacts in order to comply with the General Plan.”
Response to Comment #18: As mentioned above, LOS can no longer be considered in the CEQA analysis. However, the City of Madera does have a project LOS threshold policy. Like most jurisdictions, the city has a reasonable threshold for when a traffic study is required and this is dependent on peak hour trips generated by a proposed project. The City’s threshold for requiring a traffic study is 100 peak hour trips. A Trip Generation Memo is included in Appendix D of the MND. This memo analyzed the worst-case scenario (per standard practice) and thus the ITE manual Land Use 157 was utilized, even though the proposed use is not truly defined as “high-cube” cold storage. Thus, this overestimated actual project trip generation. Even so, this memo Vehicle Miles Traveled Resources
Modero County - VMT Screening Maps
I MADERA COUNTY VEHICLE NILES TRAVELED Q.
==: legen:l $ layer!> a: Basemap ga.,,y O Details -to Share " 8r>otmffl5 Zones Madera
WORK_VMT 10,533
EMPLOYMENT 1,022
VMT_JOB 10.31
AVG_16_9 15'M> OR MORE BELOW
AVERAGE
e_ Zoomlo
April 7, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 14 determined that a high-cube cold storage use of this size would have a peak hour trip generation rate of less than 100. Thus, a traffic study analyzing LOS was not required. 1234 O Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 449-4500
Via Email
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Robert Smith, Senior Planner
City of Madera
205 W. 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
[email protected]
RE: Response to Comment Letter received from Blum Collins & Ho LLP on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2021-41
On behalf of the City of Madera, Precision Civil Engineering, Inc. (PCE) has prepared the following letter in response to the comment letter received from Blum Collins & Ho LLP on April 4, 2022, about the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse, Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 2021-41.
Comments received from Blum Collins & Ho LLP are focused on the Project Description, impacts related to Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Land Use and Planning, and Transportation. Therefore, the responses on the following pages are concentrated on these section and impact areas.
Project Description
Comment #1: “It is notable that the MND does not include a detailed site plan, floor plan or elevations for Phase II. The basic components of a Planning Application include a site plan, floor plan, elevations, and a project narrative describing the proposed use in detail. The site plan provided in Figure 2-5 does not provide any detailed information such as the earthwork quantity notes, parking requirements, site coverage, floor area ratio, etc. The MND has excluded the proposed detailed site plan, floor plans and elevations from public review, which does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for adequate informational documents and meaningful disclosure (CEQA § 15121 and 21003(b)). Incorporation by reference (CEQA § 15150 (f)) is not appropriate as these documents contribute directly to analysis of the problem at hand.” Response to Comment #1: Phase II of the proposed project is not currently being entitled through site plan review. Only Phase I is proposed for approval. According to Laurel Heights Improvement Association v Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, for a phased development project, even if details about future phases ~,..,6gc~Jt9"' - ~ ENGll\:EERIN~C
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 2 are not known, future phases must be included in the project description if they are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial phase and will significantly change the initial project or its impacts. Thus, Phase II was analyzed since it is a known, future phase, but project specific details regarding the project (including floor plans and elevations) are not currently available for this phase.
Comment #2: “Providing this information is vital as the Air Quality Appendix states “Based on applicant-provided information, cut and fill and is expected to balance on-site.” There is no method for public verification of this anecdotal statement in the MND. An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review including a grading plan for public verification of earthwork quantities.”
Response to Comment #2: An EIR is not required to verify earthwork quantities. The information provided was prepared by the project Civil Engineer and was an accurate representation of what was known at the time of the analysis. It is not typical to have a grading plan completed at the time of preparation of an initial study.
Comment #3: “Additionally, the project site is described throughout the MND as vacant with no improvements or structures on the site. However, several aerial images of the project site throughout its Appendices, such as Figure 2: Project Vicinity within the Noise Appendix depict at least four residential structures on the north side of the project site with access from Boles Street. Demolition of the onsite residential structures is implementation of the proposed project prior to CEQA review and alters the environmental setting. Removing these structures required site preparation, demolition, and hauling trips that are not analyzed in the MND. An EIR must be prepared to accurately analyze the potentially significant impacts, including those related to project implementation prior to CEQA review.” Response to Comment #3: This is an incorrect statement. The project does not propose the demolition of any residential structures.
Comment #4: “Further, Figure 2-5 Site Plan depicts a building that is not included for analysis in the MND. On the east side of the Phase I building, a building called “ready roast” is identified as “NIC”, assumed to stand for “not in contract/not included”. Figure 2-6 Phase I Site Plan depicts the ready roast building as a landscape area. “ Response to Comment #4: This is an incorrect statement. The site plan depicts this “Ready Roast” building across the future Condor Road alignment on both Figures 2-5 and 2-6.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 3 Comment #5: “Additionally, Figure 2-5 states that the project will extend Condor Road for vehicle access to the project site from Aviation Drive. The MND does not include this road extension for analysis, which is vital in the Land Use and Planning analysis and any growth inducement analysis. Both these items are components of the proposed project that is not included for analysis. The MND does not accurately or adequately describe the project, meaning “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” (CEQA § 15378).”
Response to Comment #5: This is an incorrect statement. On page 2-8, under Project Setting, it states that “Condor Road is proposed to be extended south to Aviation Drive, past parcels identified as APNs 013-200-12 and 013-200-13.” The extension of Condor Road is also discussed on page 2-9 under Site Circulation and Parking. The road is fully analyzed the IS/MND and it was determined that it will not result in any growth inducing impacts. The road is being built solely for the purpose of access to the subject site, and will not be extended beyond this, as described in the initial study.
Comment #6: “CEQA § 15165 - Multiple and Phased Projects requires that “Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168.” The MND misleads the public and decision makers by circumventing adequate and accurate environmental analysis for the whole of the action to include the ready roast facility and extension of Condor Road to Aviation Drive. A program EIR must be prepared which accurately represents the whole of the action without piecemealing the project into separate, smaller development projects or development areas to present unduly low environmental impacts.”
Response to Comment #6: As described above, the whole of the project (proposed and known) is included in Chapter 2 (Project Description) of the MND. An EIR is not required given that all impacts have been determined to be less than significant with mitigation imposed.
Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Comment #7: “The MND does not include for analysis relevant environmental justice issues in reviewing potential impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 4 project. This is especially significant as the surrounding community is highly burdened by pollution. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.01, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the state for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, the proposed project’s census tract (6039000503) ranks worse than 78% of the rest of the state overall in pollution burden. The surrounding community, including residences to the southeast, bears the impact of multiple sources of pollution and is more polluted than other census tracts in many pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen. For example, the project census tract ranks in the 75th percentile for ozone burden and 79th percentile for PM 2.5 burden, which are attributed to heavy truck activity in the area.”
Response to Comment #7: A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project. An analysis of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) (including Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)) was performed using the EPA-approved AERMOD model, which is an air dispersion Model accepted by the SJVAPCD for preparing HRAs.
AERMOD version 21112 was used for this analysis. Consistent with SJVAPCD guidance, the health risk computation was performed to determine the risk of developing an excess cancer risk calculated on a 70-year exposure scenario. Results of the HRA are summarized in the table below.
The complete HRA prepared for the proposed project, including calculations and AERMOD output data, are included in Attachment B of Appendix A of the IS/MND.
As shown in the table above, the Project would not exceed the cancer risk, chronic risk, and acute risk threshold levels. The primary source of the emissions responsible for chronic risk are from diesel trucks and dieselpowered transport refrigeration units.
DPM does not have an acute risk factor. Since the Project does not exceed the Summary of the Health Impacts from Operations of the Proposed Project (70-year Scenario)
Maximum cancer Risk Chronic
Exposure Scenario (Risk per Million) Non-Cancer Hazard Index 70-Year Exposure at t he MER
3.54 0.007 (from DPM Emissions)
Applicable Threshold of 20 1 Significance
Threshold Exceeded? No No
Notes:
MER ; Maximally Exposed Receptor
Origo Cold Madera Project Total DPM MER UTM: 758610.13, 4097186.34 Source: Attachment B.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 5 applicable SJVAPCD thresholds for cancer risk, acute risk, or chronic risk, the impact related to the Project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
Operations
As shown in the Table below, operational modeling of on-site emissions for the project indicate that the project would not exceed 100 pounds per day for each of the criteria pollutants. Therefore, based on the SJVAPCD’s guidance, the operational emissions would not cause an ambient air quality standard violation. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
There are no conditions unique to the project site that would require more intense construction activity compared to typical development. Examples of situations that would warrant closer scrutiny may include sites that would require extensive excavation and hauling due to existing site conditions. In addition, the project screened out of needing to complete a more refined analysis to determine the project’s potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACS during project construction based on the screening analysis summarized on page 4-15 of the IS/MND.
Because construction is short-term, it is appropriate to use the localized screening analysis to determine if a more refined analysis is necessary to determine the project’s Localized Concentrations of PMlO, PM2.5, CO, and NOX for Operations Source On-site Emissions (pounds per day)
NOx co PM10 PM2.s
Area <0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0 .02 0 .02 <0 .01 <0.01
Mobi le .
Passenger 0.66 7.21 0.12 0.03
Veh icles Trips
Mobi le - Truck 1.51 1.18 0.03 0.01
Tri ps
Total 2.20 8.46 0.15 0.05
Significance 100 100 100 100 Thresholds
Exceed
Significance No No No No
Thresholds?
Source of Emissions: CalEEMod Output and Additional Supporting Information (Attachment A). Maximum daily emissions of NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM2.s were highest in the Winter scenario.
Source of Thresholds: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollut ion Control District (SJVAPCD). 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mit igat ing Air Quality Impacts. February 19. Website: https://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQl-2015/FINAL-DRAFT-GAMAQI.PDF. Accessed February 6, 2022.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 6 potential to exposure sensitive receptors to elevated levels of TACs during the construction period. It is common for PM2.5 or PM10 to be used as a proxy for diesel particulate matter (DPM). As shown on page 4-15 of the IS/MND, the project’s maximum on-site daily emissions of PM would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s 100- pounds-per day screening thresholds for either PM2.5 or PM10. Based on this information, coupled with the proposed project’s anticipated construction schedule, it can be concluded that the health risks resulting from construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SJVAPCD’s applicable thresholds.
Greenhouse Gas
The SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects Under CEQA (2009) provides screening criteria for climate change analyses, as well as draft guidance for the determination of significance. These criteria are used to evaluate whether a project would result in a significant climate change impact (see below). Projects that meet one of these criteria would have less than significant impact on the global climate.
• Does the project comply with an adopted statewide, regional, or local plan for reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions? If no, then:
o Does the project achieve 29% GHG reductions by using approved Best Performance Standards (BPS)? If no, then
o Does the project achieve AB 32 targeted 29% GHG emission reductions compared with Business As Usual (BAU)?
Below is a simplification of this process identified in a Fact Sheet from the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.
Project EXEMPT
fromCEOA
NO Further
Analysis
Project complies wllh an
~oPled at.olcrwldo,
regtonaL or k>cal plan '°' ,_ __ _,,.,____ ntducUon CN" nvligation or QHG •nw• k>n•
v ..
ProieCt actueves 29% OHO Em,qion
Reducuons Target by
uamg Approved BPS
v ..
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
No
GHG eml elon■
QuantJflcatJon
Protect ec:hleveo AB32
1.argeted 29 % GHO
Eml"""1 R.OVC,lone
oompantd to BAU
v ..
No
SIGNIFICANT
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 7 The City of Madera has a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that was adopted by City Council on September 2, 2015. In this plan, the following is noted: “According to the California Natural Resources Agency (2009) and the State’s Office of the Attorney General (2009), GHG emissions may be best analyzed and mitigated at a programmatic level (i.e., GHG reduction plan/CAP). In 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency amended the State CEQA Guidelines to add a new provision, Section 15183.5, which allows jurisdictions to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level by adopting a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions (i.e., a CAP). Section 15183.5 states a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions should:
• Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area. • Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; ν Identify and analyze the GHGs emissions resulting from sources in the community.
• Identify a suite of specific, enforceable measures that, collectively, will achieve the emissions target.
• Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress and to require amendment if the plan is falling short; and
• Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
This CAP incorporates these elements consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, which allows it to be used in the cumulative GHG emissions impacts analysis of later projects. The environmental document for each project must identify those requirements specified in the CAP that apply to the project, and if those requirements are not otherwise binding or enforceable, should be incorporated as mitigation measures applicable to the project (CEQA 15183.5b). To facilitate this process for future projects Appendix E lists CAP measures applicable to new development. If it is determined that the proposed Project is not consistent with the CAP, further analysis would be required, and the applicant would be required to demonstrate that the proposed Project would not substantially interfere with implementation of the CAP.” Thus, if an individual project is found to be consistent with the CAP, the project can be deemed to have a less than significant impact as it related to Greenhouse Gas impacts.
The project will incorporate applicable measures and standards from the City of Madera’s CAP. As shown in the table below, the Project would be consistent with the April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 8 applicable goals and policies related to GHG reduction measures by complying with the City of Madera’s CAP. Because of this, the Project would not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the impact would be less than significant.
Project Consistency with City of Madera CAP
Measure Name Project
Actions
Project
Compliance
(Yes/No/NA) Description/Details*
E-2 Energy
Efficient New
Construction
Is the project
consistent with
applicable
policies of the
Conservation
Element of the
General Plan?
Yes
The project’s
demonstrated
compliance with the
elements of the
conservation element
can be found in this
initial study (i.e.
Hydrology, Agricultural,
Public Services and
Bio, etc). Some of the
items discussed in the
Conservation Element
include Water Quality
(pollution prevention,
discharge, and runoff
control), Soils and
Agriculture, Biology, Air
Quality, etc. The
analysis contained in
this initial study is
demonstrated
compliance with these
measures.
Does the project
exceed Title 24
Energy Efficiency
Building
Standards, meet
the state’s Green
Building
Standards
voluntary tier
levels, or is LEED
Greenpoint, or
ENERGY STAR
rated?
N/A
Given that the 2019
Building Code
increased energy
efficiency requirements
and the baseline in the
CAP is 2015 standards,
it can be assumed that
all buildings
constructed at the
project site will exceed
standards. In addition,
the project is building
solar and will be
utilizing additional
green building
techniques.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 9 E-3 On-Site
Small-Scale
Renewable
Energy
Does the project
include solar PV
systems or solar
hot water heaters?
Yes
Yes, the project
proposes a solar PV
system.
T-1: Infill and
Mixed-Use
Development
Is the project
consistent with the
land use
designation(s)
shown onthe
General Plan Land
Use Map and with
the applicable
polies of the Land
Use Element of the
General Plan
policies?
Yes
This is demonstrated by
identified General Plan
policies in this Initial
Study. In addition, the
Project site has a
Madera General Plan
land use designation of
Industrial. According to
the Madera General
Plan, the Industrial land
use category provides
for both light and
heavy industrial
development. The
Project proposes a cold
storage warehouse,
which is considered a
light industrial use. As
such, the Project is
consistent with the
Industrial land use
designation.
Is the project
consistent with the
Madera County
Blueprint?
Yes
The project is
consistent with the
guiding principles of this
plan, including
encouraging
sustainable agriculture
so that it should remain
a viable option for our
land to provide part of
our food supply and to
serve export markets.
The proposed cold
storage building will
allow farm commodities
to be refrigerated to
reduce waste by
allowing longer
preservation.
Does the project
include mixeduse, higher
density (22.5 to 50
N/A
Project site is not
planned for mixed use
development.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 10 units per acre), or
infill
development?
Is the project located
within ¼ mile of
transit stops or in
existing
community
centers/downtown?
No
Although the project is
not located near a
transit stop, it is located
along a major
thoroughfares in the
City of Madera. It is
anticipated that the
project area will be
served by public transit
as the population in the
area continues to
increase.
T-2 Bicycle
and
Pedestrian
Environment
Is the project
consistent with
applicable
policies of the
Community
Design and
Circulation
Elements of the
General Plan?
Yes
The project will
construct bicycle and
pedestrian facilities as
required by the General
Plan and Municipal
Code.
Is the project
consistent with the
Bicycle Master
Plan?
N/A
The project will
construct bicycle and
pedestrian facilities as
required by the General
Plan and Municipal
Code. There is now an
active master plan in
the City.
Does the project
meet minimum
design criteria
for bicycle and
pedestrian
circulation?
Yes
Project has been
reviewed by
Engineering to verify
compliance.
Does the project
provide
adequate and
secure bicycle
parking?
Yes
Project has been
reviewed by
Engineering to verify
compliance and
conditioned
accordingly.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 11 T-3 Transit
Travel
Is the project
consistent with
applicable
policies of the
Circulation and
Community
Development
Elements of the
General Plan?
Yes
Project has been
reviewed by
Engineering to verify
compliance and
conditioned
accordingly.
Does the project
provide safe
routes to adjacent
transit stops,
where applicable?
Yes
Although there are no
stops in the vicinity, the
project will provide
sidewalks and improve
access.
Does the project
finance and/or
construct bus
turnouts and
shelters where
transit demand
warrants such
improvements?
N/A
Does the project
provide public
transit vouchers
to its
employees?
N/A
The developer is open
to providing public
transit vouchers to
employees once the
area has better access
to public transit.
T-4 Commute
Trip
Reduction
Is the project
consistent with
applicable
policies of the
Community
Development
Element of the
General Plan?
Yes
Project has been
reviewed by Planning to
verify compliance and
conditioned
accordingly.
Does the project
include and/or
promote TDM
programs?
N/A
T-5 Traffic
Flowand
Vehicle
Idling
Does the
project include
measures to
improve traffic
flow?
Yes
Project has been
reviewed by
Engineering to verify
compliance and
conditioned
accordingly.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 12 T-6 Low
Carbon Fuel
Vehicles and
Infrastructure
Is the project
consistent with
applicable
policies of the
Community
Development
Element of the
General Plan?
Yes
Project has been
reviewed by Planning to
verify compliance and
conditioned
accordingly.
Is the project
consistent with the
San Joaquin Valley
Plug-in Electric
Vehicle (PEV)
Readiness
Plan?
Yes
Given that the 2019
Building Code requires
EV readiness, the
project will comply.
Does the project
include
alternative fueling
stations or EV
charging stations?
N/A
As noted above, given
that the 2019 Building
Code requires EV
readiness, the project
will comply.
T-7
Construction
and Off-Road
Equipment
Would construction
of the project use
alternatively fueled
construction
vehicles/equipment
(i.e., repowered
engines, electric
drive trains, CARBapproved low
carbon fuel,
electricallypowered)?
Yes
Project will comply with
all requirements of the
San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control
District.
Would the project
include lowmaintenance
native landscaping
or xeriscaping?
Yes Project will comply with
MWELO standards.
W-1 Exceed SB
X7-7 Water
Conservation
Target
Does the project
incorporate water
efficiency and water
conservation
measures?
Yes Project will comply with
MWELO standards.
W-2
Recycled
Water
Is the project
consistent with
applicable
policies of the
Yes
Project will install
recycled water
infrastructure.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 13 Conservation
Element of the
General Plan?
Does the project
incorporate
recycled/reclaimed
water?
Yes
Project will install
recycled water
infrastructure.
U-1 Trees
and
Vegetation
Is the project
consistent with
applicable
policies of the
Community
Design Element
of the General
Plan?
Yes
Project has been
reviewed by Planning to
verify compliance and
conditioned
accordingly. Project will
provide enhanced
architectural elements.
Does the
project include
theplanting of
new trees or
new acres of
vegetated
land?
Yes
Project will add dozens
of shade trees to the
project area.
As demonstrated above, the Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies related to GHG reduction measures by complying with the City of Madera’s CAP. Because of this, the Project would not occur at a scale or scope with potential to contribute substantially or cumulatively to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions and therefore the impact would be less than significant.
Comment #8: “The census tract ranks in the 91st percentile for groundwater threats.
People who live near contaminated groundwater may be exposed to chemicals moving from the soil into the air inside their homes2. The census tract ranks in the 83rd percentile for hazardous waste impacts. Hazardous waste generators and facilities contribute to the contamination of air, water and soil near waste generators and facilities can harm the environment as well as people3. The census tract ranks in the 88th percentile for impacts from pesticides. Exposure to high levels of some pesticides can cause illness immediately or conditions such as birth defects or cancer later in life4. The census tract ranks in the 84th percentile for impacts from toxic releases. Chemicals given off by toxic facilities can be detected in the air of nearby communities and people living near facilities may breathe contaminated air regularly or if contaminants are released during an accident.” April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 14 Response to Comment #8: The project will not negatively impact groundwater as the project will comply with all regulations and standards and is connecting to City water and wastewater systems. The proposed project is not a “toxic” facility. An Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum was prepared for the project to evaluate whether the estimated criteria air pollutant, ozone precursor, toxic air contaminant (TAC), and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from construction and/or operation of the proposed Facility would cause significant impacts to air or GHG resources. The methodology followed the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for the quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources. The GHG Analysis follows and the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The evaluation found the impacts to be less than significant.
Comment #9: “Additionally, the project’s census tract and the adjacent census tracts are identified as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities6, which is not discussed or presented for analysis in the MND.”
Response to Comment #9: Senate Bill (SB) 535 is not related to CEQA. SB 535 directed that at least a quarter of the proceeds from the State’s Cap-and-Trade Program go to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities and at least 10 percent of the funds go to projects located within those communities.1 Comment #10: “The State of California lists three approved energy compliance modeling softwares7for non- residential buildings: CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE. CalEEMod is not listed as an approved software. The CalEEMod energy calculations in the MND do not comply with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and under reports the project’s potentially significant GHG and Energy impacts to the public and decision makers. Since the MND did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts in compliance with Title 24, a finding of significance must be made. An EIR with modeling in one of the approved software types must be circulated for public review in order to adequately analyze the project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. This is vital as the MND utilizes CalEEMod as a source in its methodology and analysis, which is clearly not one of the approved softwares.” 1 https://calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/GHGInvest/
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 15 Response to Comment #10: Energy modeling is not required to analyze project energy impacts under CEQA.
Comment #11: “It must also be noted that Madera is not listed as a jurisdiction with local energy standards approved by the CA Energy Commission8. According to the CA Energy Commission, “Local jurisdictions are required to apply to the Energy Commission for approval, documenting the supporting analysis for how the local government has determined that their proposed Standards will save more energy than the current statewide Standards and the basis of the local government s determination that the local standards are cost-effective.” Therefore, compliance with the City’s General Plan does not comply with CA Energy Commission standards or AB 32/SB 32. The MND is misleading to the public and decision makers by stating compliance with these standards when the local jurisdiction standards have not been approved by the CA Energy Commission. An EIR must be prepared with adequate analysis of project impacts utilizing an approved modeling software in order to be a reliable informational document in compliance with CEQA.”
Response to Comment #11: The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) are the standards of the CA Energy Commission. The “Local Ordinance Exceeding the 2019 Energy Code”, or local energy standards approved by the CA Energy Commission, are only applicable to “local jurisdictions wishing to enforce locally adopted energy standards”. Since the City of Madera adopts the Energy Code as is, the Project is subject to the Energy Code standards, thus is compliant with CA Energy Commission standards. The Project has been reviewed for compliance with the Energy Code through the entitlement process and will be further reviewed for compliance during the building permit process.
Comment #12: “Additionally, the MND utilizes uncertain language in discussing energy impacts. The MND concludes that “the results of the analyses do not rise to a level of significance given the nature of the Project (i.e., non-residential) and the Project’s required compliance with various energy efficiency regulations and policies including CALGreen, Title 24 (e.g., Lighting Power Density requirements), the General Plan, California Code of Regulations (e.g., Title 13, Motor Vehicles), and CARB (e.g., Airborne Toxic Control Measure).
Thus, through compliance, the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and a less than significant impact would occur.” As noted above, the project has not demonstrated compliance with Title 24 and compliance with General Plan measures is not an approved standard by the CA Energy Commission. The MND does not specify a level of significance threshold that would quantify a significant impact. An EIR must be prepared to provide an adequate analysis of the project’s GHG and Energy impacts in compliance with CEQA.”
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 16 Response to Comment #12: According to Appendix F: Energy Conservation of the CEQA Guidelines, energy impacts shall be considered to the extent relevant and applicable to the project. In other words, a quantitative analysis is not required under CEQA. Further, according to Appendix F, consideration of energy impacts may include the degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. Thus, it is appropriate to include compliance with various energy efficiency regulations and policies. As discussed above, the Project is compliant with the Title 24 Energy Code, which is the CA Energy Commission’s standards. In addition, project measures, including the planned installation of solar, were discussed to demonstrate that not only will the project comply with energy efficiency standards, but that the project will include an energy generation component, further demonstrating that the project, as proposed, would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Land Use and Planning
Comment #13: “The MND does not provide a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies. An EIR must be prepared that includes a consistency analysis with all General Plan goals and policies, including but not limited to the following:” Response to Comment #13: CEQA does not mandate that the initial study list every general plan policy to demonstrate project compliance. The project was reviewed against general plan policies and determined to be consistent. Below are responses to specific policies that were identified in the comment letter.
Policy CI-22: The City shall seek to maintain Level of Service (LOS) C at all times on all roadways and intersections in Madera.
According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, “Even if a general plan contains an LOS standard and a project is found to exceed that standard, that conflict should not be analyzed under CEQA. CEQA is focused on planning conflicts that lead to environmental impacts. (The Highway 68 Coalition v. County of Monterey (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 883; see, e.g., Appendix G, IX(b) [asking whether the project will “Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 17 environmental effect?”].) Auto delay, on its own, is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099(b)(2).)” 2 Goal CON-11 Air quality that meets or exceeds all state and federal standards.
As mentioned above, an Air Quality, Health Risk Analysis, and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum was prepared for the project to evaluate whether the estimated criteria air pollutant, ozone precursor, toxic air contaminant (TAC), and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from construction and/or operation of the project would cause significant impacts to air or GHG resources. The methodology followed the Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) prepared by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for the quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources. The GHG Analysis follows and the SJVAPCD’s Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for New Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The evaluation found the impacts to be less than significant. This analysis and report demonstrate that the project is in compliance with all state and federal air quality standards.
Goal CON-12 Meet or exceed all current and future state-mandated targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
The project complies with this General Plan Policy. A greenhouse gas analysis was prepared for the project, as mentioned above. This study, along with the related impact assessment contained in the MND (Section 4.8.2 on the MND document) demonstrate that the project meets or exceeds all current and future state-mandated targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Policy CON-29 The City shall require new air pollution point sources (such as, but not limited to, industrial, manufacturing, and processing facilities) to be located an adequate distance from residential areas and other sensitive receptors. “Adequate distance” will be based on site-specific conditions, the type and location of sensitive receptors, on the types and amounts of potential toxic emissions, and other factors.
The project complies with this General Plan Policy given that the Project is well below the SJVAPCD thresholds and is thus not considered a new air pollution point source. 2 https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/sb-743/faq.html, Access on 4-7-22 April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 18 Comment #14: “The MND does not provide any consistency analysis with the Madera County Transportation Commission (MCTC) adopted 2018 RTP/SCS9. Due to errors in modeling and modeling without supporting evidence, as noted throughout this comment letter and attachments, the proposed project has significant potential for inconsistency with Goal 5 to maintain the efficiency, safety, and security of the region’s transportation system, Goal 9 to protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation, Strategy 5 to Enhance the Environment: the transportation system improves the environment through energy conservation, improving the quality of life, and promoting consistency between transportation improvements, planned growth, economic development, and environmental justice issues, Objective 14 to improve and maintain an integrated transportation network that reduces congestion and minimizes safety issues, and Objective 41 to avoid disproportionately high adverse environmental impacts upon lowincome individuals, the elderly, persons with disabilities or minority populations consistent with Title VI regulations. An EIR must be prepared to include accurate Air Quality/HRA, Energy, and GHG modeling and provide an analysis of potential inconsistency with the 2018 RTP/SCS document.”
Response to Comment #14: Goals of the RTP/SCS are “broad policy statements that describe the purpose of the plan”, which do not specify actions for compliance. In addition, the RTP/SCS is not designed to be implemented at the project level, and compliance with the city’s municipal code and General Plan would provide compliance with the RTP/SCS. That said, the Project does not affect the region’s transportation system since it does not propose new or alternations to existing regional transportation networks, such as state routes or public transit (compliance with Goal 5) and the Project proposes sidewalks, which would encourage active transportation such as bicycling and walking (compliance with Goal 9, Strategy 5). The Project was review by the city’s traffic department which provided conditions to ensure the traffic safety (compliance with Objective 14). The ISMND did not find environmentally significant impacts in the areas of impact analyzed (compliance with Objective 41).
Population and Housing
Comment # 15: “The MND concludes that “while the Project would generate employment (i.e., nine (9) employees), it is not at a level that could induce population growth,” resulting in a less than significant impact. The MND does not provide a source methodology for its determination that the project will generate 9 employees. There is also no calculation of the employees generated by the construction of the project…”.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 19 Response to Comment #15: Project employment numbers were determined by the applicant’s operational statement, which is a standard methodology. Employment generated by project construction will be temporary and thus it is reasonable to conclude that the construction of a project of this size will not “Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)”.
Comment #16: “As noted above, at least four residential structures on the north side of the project site with access from Boles Street were demolished prior to CEQA review. An EIR must be prepared that analyzes the need for replacement housing and compliance with SB 330:
Housing Crisis Act of 2019.”
Response to Comment #16: Homes are not proposed to be demolished.
Transportation
Comment #17: “The MND excludes medium and heavy truck trips from the VMT analysis. The MND states that, “Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, ‘vehicle miles traveled refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. The term automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Thus, trips associated with large trucks are excluded from the VMT analysis and only employee and customer trips must be considered for VMT analysis without providing a statutory source.” CEQA Guidelines do not provide a definition of the term “automobile.” The MND sources the OPR s 2018 Technical Advisory which provides a definition of “automobile” stating that “here, the term automobile” refers to on- road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks.” However, the purpose of the OPR Technical Advisory document is purely advisory, stating in its introduction:
“The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice”
The OPR document is not a legal interpretation, court decision, or amendment to the CEQA statute that clarifies the definition of automobile. The term “automobile” is not defined in the CEQA statute and application of the OPR interpretation is speculative and does not provide an analysis of the “worst-case scenario” for environmental impacts. Widespread public understanding and perception indicates that trucks, including medium and heavy-duty trucks April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 20 associated with the industrial nature of warehouse operations, are automobiles. An EIR must be prepared to remove this misleading information (including the erroneous statement that CEQA Guidelines define the term “automobile”) and include all truck activity, including medium and heavy trucks, for quantified VMT analysis. The operational nature of industrial/warehouse uses involves high rates of medium/heavy truck/trailer VMT due to traveling from large regional distribution centers to smaller industrial parks and then to their final delivery destinations. Table 4.2 Trip Summary of the Air Quality Appendix CalEEMod output sheets indicates that the project will generate approximately 998 average daily trips for passenger cars, resulting 2,915,196 annual VMT (2,915,196 / 365 days = 7,986 daily total VMT). The project will generate approximately 70 average daily trips for trucks, resulting 1,123,297 annual VMT (1,123,297 / 365 days = 3,077 daily total VMT). This is exponentially higher than the TAZ VMTs reported in the MND. The project’s truck/trailer activity is unable to utilize public transit or active transportation and it is misleading to the public and decision makers to exclude the truck/trailer activity from VMT analysis. An EIR must be prepared to reflect a quantified VMT analysis that includes all truck/trailer activity to adequately and accurately analyze the potentially significant project transportation impacts.
Response to Comment #17:
VMT for traffic is only focused on commuter/employee trips and is not required to analyze truck trips. The trips in the air quality analysis include all trips (employee, visitor, vendor, deliveries, etc). In addition, the VMT analysis is estimating VMT to compare to a regional average. There are several methods that this VMT may be calculated as long as the baseline and the project VMT are calculated using the same method. These methods used for the VMT analysis presented in a traffic section do not correspond with the VMT calculated in CalEEMod as a result of inputting projectspecific information to calculate air pollutant and GHG emissions.
Breakdown of assumptions used in the Air Quality Analysis:
Based on project-specific estimates that Phase 1 would result in 10-15 trucks per day with additional non-facility trips, it was assumed that the project could generate up to 70 truck trips per day at full buildout. Ten (10) of the total daily truck trips were assumed to be from non-facility uses (such as FedEx and UPS deliveries and shipments and waste pickup). The project-specific estimates were applied to calculate the daily truck trips, while the remaining project trips were assigned to passenger vehicles. Table 5 presents trip generation characteristics for projected trips for the project.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 21 Table: Project Trip Generation Calculations used to Estimate Project Emissions Description
Passenger
Vehicles Trucks
Total Daily
Trips
Daily Trips (trips per
day) 998.5 70.0 1068.5
Source: Appendix A.
• Source of total daily trips: CalEEmod default values for a refrigerated warehouse (CalEEMod default rates are based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. For this land use, it would be ITE Land Use 157) • Breakdown of trucks vs. passenger vehicles: project-specific truck trips from the project description were used as the basis
Trip lengths in the Air Quality/GHG Analysis
Industrial land use projects can be expected to have longer than average truck trip lengths compared to the default trip length in CalEEMod (7.3 miles to 9.5 miles for urban areas of Madera County). To estimate mobile-source emissions from trucks during project operations, a one-way truck trip length of 50 miles was assumed based on recommendations from the SJVAPCD for industrial projects. To • Passenger cars: CalEEMod default rates
• Truck trips: 50-mile one-way trip length, as recommended by the SJVAPCD for use in industrial projects
It is important for the air quality analysis to account for emissions from vehicles that would enter or exit the project site; whereas a traffic analysis is often concerned with trips that would be additional on the road network. For instance, pass-by trips are often netted out in a trip generation table used for a traffic analysis because these trips would be on the road network with or without the project. However, gross project trips would be used in the air quality analysis because it is important that on-site emissions are fully accounted for. Likewise, there are several differences in the way a VMT analysis completed for traffic is done differently than the VMT generated by an air quality analysis.
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 22 A VMT Analysis was prepared for the project which indicates that the project screens out based on two separate screening thresholds. “Screening out” signifies that the project will have a less than significant impact. This analysis is provided in Appendix E of the MND and included (partially) below for reference:
Screening Threshold for Small Projects (110 Daily Trips or Less) Approximately nine (9) employees and two (2) customers are expected to work at and/or visit the facility per day. Assuming one (1) in and one (1) out trip per day, the total average daily trips (ADT) made by automobiles would be 22 total per day. Thus, based on the expected customers or drivers resulting from the Project, passenger vehicles can be expected to generate a total of 22 ADTs per day. As such, total ADTs for the Project would be significantly less than the 110 ADT threshold. Even if truck trips are included in the analysis (which should be excluded based on the OPR Technical Advisory), the project would still generate well under 110 ADTs.
Map-Based Screening
The Madera County Transportation Commission has established a screening map to determine if projects impacts related to VMT can be determined less than significant based on proposed use and project location. The map utilized the Madera County Travel Demand Model. According to the VMT Baseline Table3, “The SB743 VMT Tool can be used to calculate VMT per capita by TAZ for a residential development project, or VMT per job by (Transportation Analysis Zone) TAZ for an office development project for SB743 analysis using the MCTC Model outputs. The Madera County subregional baseline VMT per capita/job for the selected TAZ will also be reported for screening purposes.”
According to the above-mentioned document, “VMT per job were generated by homebased work (HW) trips at the attraction ends. Thus, for work VMT we summed up all inbound HW trips to each internal TAZ. The origin-destination (O-D) distances were skimmed off the highway network between each O-D pair in the model including gateway TAZs. For the IX/XI trips, external average trip lengths, per gateway, were added to the skimmed O-D distances. The product of total HW trips and the total O-D distance was the work VMT for that TAZ. The baseline VMT per job for an air basin was calculated by dividing the total work VMT by the total jobs in that air basin.” VRPA, the traffic consultant who assisted with the effort has indicated that this type of project (Amond World Cold Storage project) can use the VMT/employee map for industrial, office, or any other use that is employment related. 3 https://www.maderactc.org/transportation/page/vehicle-miles-traveled-resources Accessed February 1, 2022 April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 23 According to the screening map (see Figure 1 below), the proposed project is located in Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) 289. TAZ 289 has a total of 10,533 work/employment related vehicle miles traveled with a current employment population of 1,022. This is equivalent to 10.31 VMTs per job, which is more than 15% below the County Average of 16.9 VMTs per job. Given that this is below the identified threshold of significance, it can be determined that a less than significant impact would occur and the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (b).
Figure 1. Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Map
Statement of Finding
The Project would have a less-than-significant impact for any net increase in total VMT and is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). No mitigation measures are required.
,
Comment #18: Additionally, the MND has not provided a level of service (LOS) analysis for the proposed project which is required by the City’s General Plan Policy CI-22. An EIR must be prepared with a Traffic Impact Analysis that analyzes LOS impacts in order to comply with the General Plan.”
Vehicle Miles Traveled Resources
Madera County - VMT Screening Maps
I MADERA COUNTY VEHICLE r.lLES TRAVELED Q.
=~ e uyers ::s-pgeey o 0etai5 w~ • 8ooknwb
WORK_VMT 10,533
EMPLOYMENT 1,022
VMT_JOB 10.31
AVG_16_'3 1.5% OR MORE BELOW
AVERAGE
April 7, 2022
Revised April 26, 2022
Response Letter
ISMND – Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse (SPR 2021-41) 24 Response to Comment #18: As mentioned above, LOS can no longer be considered in the CEQA analysis. However, the City of Madera does have a project LOS threshold policy. Like most jurisdictions, the city has a reasonable threshold for when a traffic study is required and this is dependent on peak hour trips generated by a proposed project. The City’s threshold for requiring a traffic study is 100 peak hour trips. A Trip Generation Memo is included in Appendix D of the MND. This memo analyzed the worst-case scenario (per standard practice) and thus the ITE manual Land Use 157 was utilized, even though the proposed use is not truly defined as “high-cube” cold storage. Thus, this overestimated actual project trip generation. Even so, this memo determined that a high-cube cold storage use of this size would have a peak hour trip generation rate of less than 100. Thus, a traffic study analyzing LOS was not required. 1 California Street - Suite 3050
San Francisco, California 94111-5432
voice 415.655.8100 - fax 415.655.8099
www.bwslaw.com
Direct No.: 415.655.8115
Our File No.: 08751-0001
[email protected]
Los Angeles – Inland Empire – Marin County – Oakland – Orange County – Palm Desert – San Diego – San Francisco – Silicon Valley – Ventura County April 28, 2022
VIA E-MAIL
Mr. Gary Conte, Planning Manager
Mr. Robert Smith, Senior Planner
City of Madera Planning Department
205 W 4th Street
Madera, CA 93637
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Amond World Cold Storage Project
Dear Messrs. Smith and Conte:
We are writing on behalf of the applicant concerning the above-mentioned project, as to which an appeal is expected to be heard at your May 4, 2022 meeting. As California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) legal practitioners who regularly assist in preparing, commenting on and defending in court all types of CEQA documents, we have carefully reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), comment letters, appeal and responses to comments on the IS/MND. Based upon our analysis, we are confident that the IS/MND is comprehensive and legally sufficient. Indeed, given that there exists no evidence of significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the City lacks authority to require an environmental impact report. Thus, we urge the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s determinations.
Although the IS/MND is complete and appropriate CEQA review for the project, we believe that as an additional and independent means of complying with CEQA separate from the IS/MND, the project is exempt from CEQA review as a project consistent with a community plan, general plan or zoning policies for which an EIR was prepared. This exemption is commonly referred to as the “community plan exemption” and is governed by the CEQA statute at Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
The City’s General Plan was adopted in 2009, and a full EIR was prepared for the General Plan.
The project is consistent with the General Plan. As stated in CEQA Section 21083.3(b):
If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
Mr. Gary Conte; Mr. Robert Smith
April 28, 2022