Oxnard City Council
September 17, 2024

Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.

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

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

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.

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

Construction Noise Threshold is Misinterpreted
The Noise Memo in Appendix I errs by using the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) detailed assessment methodology with the contradictory and less stringent general assessment threshold.

Appendix I states on page 11 that “a construction-related noise level threshold is adopted from the FTA Construction Noise Handbook for General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria” and that “The construction noise criteria threshold for residential uses is 90 dBA (Leq-1hour) during the daytime.” This is correctly cited from the manual.

Additionally, on Page 15, the Noise Appendix states that in order to “calculate construction noise levels, hourly activity or utilization factors … are estimated based on the temporal characteristics of other previous and current construction projects.” These values are then given as an input in Table 6, which affects the construction noise source level used in the model (and thus the final modeled construction noise level).
876

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Comment on Noise Analysis

However, it should be noted that the FTA advises assuming a usage factor of 1 when using a general assessment in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.2 The same document notes that usage factors are only utilized in the detailed assessment. Included usage factors in a general assessment underestimates noise by as much as 7 decibels for pieces of equipment that are used in the analysis, such as cranes. This difference is baked into the different criteria. The general assessment will almost always have higher levels than the detailed assessment since there is no usage factor adjustment, and thus has a higher criterion of 90 dBA. The detailed assessment is the inverse; typically lower modeled construction noise levels with a lower criterion of 80 dBA. The document's approach of using FTA general assessment criteria while incorporating usage factors significantly underestimates the potential impact of construction noise, especially since the modeled noise for the Site Preparation and Grading phases are 7 dBA over the 80 dBA threshold. This error should be fixed in an updated EIR, with more attention paid to consistency different construction noise modeling methodologies and thresholds.

On-Site Operational Noise Analysis is Incomplete
The Noise Analysis does not study impacts generated by noise produced by this project on nearby receivers. As such, it’s possible the rooftop mechanical equipment, among other things, would raise nearby ambient levels over impact thresholds. This is especially a concern at night since HVAC systems can run at any hour.

There are no calculations nor any evidence provided that demonstrates mechanical equipment used in the Project will not be potentially significant at nearby sensitive receivers. Typical noise levels associated with mechanical equipment can be placed in a noise model with distance attenuation and project geometry to determine if there is an impact that would require mitigation. To confirm a less than significant impact, the Project Applicant should demonstrate in an Environmental Impact Report that the level generated by these sources is below reasonable significance thresholds.

The Potential for Building Damage Caused by Construction Vibration is Not Studied Table 8 presents modeled construction vibration annoyance levels along with associated thresholds for applicable sensitive receivers. The FTA guidance manual states on Page 182 that “Buildings founded on the soil near the construction site [can] respond to these [construction] vibrations with … slight damage at the highest [vibration] levels.” As such, it is imperative that all nearby sensitive receivers are analyzed for construction vibration damage to nearby structures, as such levels are within the realm of possibility. This should be included in an Environmental Impact Report.

Off-Site Operational Noise Analysis is Incomplete
Table 9 in the Noise Analysis presents Existing Plus Project Noise Levels with and without the project traffic and compares this difference to significance thresholds. However, the analysis only considers Rice Avene, Gonzales Road, and Rose Avenue. This means that potential traffic noise increases on Lockwood Ave and Outlet Center Drive are not considered.

This is particularly egregious for Lockwood Street, which is the main access road in and out of the site. Current traffic levels are presumably low, and even slight increases may double traffic, which 2 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf page 177 877

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Comment on Noise Analysis

could increase noise levels by 3 dBA3. As such, there is a potential for significant impacts, and the issue should be studied in an Environmental Impact Report.

Conclusion
The IS/MND includes several errors, including an improper interpretation of construction noise guidelines, and little to no analysis on rooftop mechanical noise, construction vibration damage to buildings, and off-site noise on Lockwood Ave and Outlet Center Drive. These error and omissions should be corrected in a revised IS/MND or in and Environmental Impact Report.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
John Meighan
Associate
lockwood 3 apartments mnd - comments on noise analysis - j meighan.docx 3 Since 3dBA represents a doubling of sound energy https://www.nps.gov/subjects/sound/mapfaq.htm 878

EXHIBIT G
879
WI #24-002.17
July 30th, 2024
Marjan R. Abubo, Esquire
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
SUBJECT: Lockwood III Apartments
Response to Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
Below is our response to comments on the letter we sent on April 8th 2024 regarding the Lockwood III Apartments Residential Project, based on the document “Lockwood III Apartments: Response to Comments on Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration” by ESA dated July 2024.

Response to A-19 and A-38
On page 3-170, the response to comments states that “A general noise assessment is suitable and appropriate given the current stage of planning and evaluation for this Project.” This is appropriate and was not questioned by our comments. This is even stated in our original letter where we say on page 2 that the criteria is properly cited from the manual.

Our issue is that the calculation is incorrect, based on the methodology from the cited Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual1 (FTA). Table 1 shows a summary of different FTA methodologies and assumptions used in each calculation.

Table 1: Summary of FTA Construction Noise Methodologies and Procedures.

Difference Between Methods Detailed FTA Methodology General FTA Methodology Threshold 80 dBA 90 dBA
Usage Factors Includes RCNM Usage
Factors
All Usage Factors = 1
Receiver Location Closest Distance from
Project Site to Receiver
Center of Project Site to
Receiver
The MND uses the 90 dBA threshold (second paragraph of page 11 of the MND Noise Appendix), with usage factors (last paragraph of page 15 of the MND Noise Appendix). If Usage Factors are present in the calculation, the more appropriate threshold is 80 dBA. This is explained in more detail in pages 1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf 880

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Response to Comments

177-179 of the FTA manual. As discussed in our previous letter, the current methodology used by the MND erroneously underestimates noise by as much as 7 dBA.

The response goes on to say that “construction noise levels provided in the Noise Study and Public Review Draft IS/MND do not include any reduction related to standard noise control strategies” and as such “in the event the more stringent threshold of 80 dBA was utilized, construction noise levels would fall below this level with implementation of regulatory compliance and best management practices.” However, this claim is unsupported. The purpose of the CEQA process is to show that thresholds are met, not to provide indeterminate strategies for avoiding threshold exceedances.

The response claims that there are “muffler systems that can reduce construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more” without providing evidence. In fact, source levels used in the MND are already accounting for mufflers. On page 16 of the Noise Appendix, the MND states “Typical noise levels for each type of construction equipment were obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model.” The source of this data is from contemporary equipment that is already equipped with mufflers, as the bulk of sound data in this model was obtained during the 1990s and 2000s during the Central Artery Tunnel project in Boston. By the 1990s, virtually all construction equipment was fitted with mufflers, so the reference sound levels already account for the noise reduction they provide. Therefore, the assumption that adding mufflers can provide a 10 dB reduction to estimated noise levels is unsubstantiated and unrealistic, creating an underestimation of construction noise levels that may lead to unstudied and unmitigated significant noise impacts.

Finally, the response states that “modifications such as dampening of metal surfaces or the redesign of a particular piece of equipment can achieve a noise reduction of up to 5 dBA.” This is without any discussion of what a ‘redesign’ of a particular piece of equipment entails, as well as why and how it could be implemented on this project.

Response to Comment A-20 and A-39
In response to concerns from both our firm and other parties, the MND was amended to add a section involving HVAC noise. The new analysis states that “the noise levels generated by these equipment types would not be substantially greater than those generated by the current HVAC equipment serving the existing buildings in the Project vicinity.” This is probably true, but it fails to represent or introduce a worst-case scenario. Even if levels were exactly the same as nearby buildings, that does not preclude a potential impact. When a second identical noise source is added to a continuously running first source, sound levels increase by 3 dB2. 3 dBA is used as the traffic noise significance threshold in the MND. The MND’s approach of saying that the noise is already present and similar noise is therefore insignificant, is an insufficient approach, since adding an additional single source could present a situation where noise levels exceed significance thresholds.

Additionally, the response says, “because the noise levels generated by the HVAC equipment serving the Proposed Project would be designed to not exceed the ambient noise levels allowable by the City of Oxnard Municipal Code, a substantial permanent increase in noise levels would not occur at the nearby sensitive receptor.” The analysis includes no discussion of how realistic this could be. The result is circular – the source levels would always be low enough using this method to ensure there is no impact, regardless of how unrealistic the source levels may be. Typical noise levels associated 2 https://msp.ucsd.edu/techniques/v0.08/book-html/node6.html 881

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Response to Comments

with mechanical equipment can be placed in a noise model with distance attenuation and project geometry/topography to determine if there is an impact that would require mitigation. To confirm a less than significant impact, the MND should demonstrate that the level generated by these sources is below appropriate significance thresholds.

Response to Comment A-40
This comment states that the MND “did analyze structural vibration impacts” since “human annoyance vibrational impacts were less than significant” and “human annoyance thresholds are lower than the structural damage thresholds.” It was determined that“structural vibrational impacts would also be less than significant, and an analysis is not warranted.” This is true and was not stated in the MND. This response is accepted.

However, it is worth noting that the MND may show an unreported significant impact. The chosen criteria for California Lutheran University is 90 VdB, which is appropriate for Workshops (Noise Appendix, Table 3). However, a university may be best categorized as an office, which has an 84 VdB threshold. The university environment involves learning and studying in a quiet, daytime setting. It is not as sensitive as places where people sleep, but is more sensitive than a workshop, where people are generally more active and where there are more noise and vibration sources from within the environment itself. Table 8 shows the predicted vibration level is 87 VdB, which is over the 84 VdB office threshold. This would count as an impact and should be studied in an Environmental Impact Report.

Response to Comment A-41
Rose Avenue, Gonzalez Street, and Rice Avenue are all major roads that lead into the area of the proposed development. These are heavily trafficked roads, where the analysis correctly states the influence of traffic from one new development would not meaningfully impact traffic noise levels on these streets. The Response then asserts that although “traffic was not measured along Lockwood Drive itself, traffic that uses Lockwood Drive was captured at the intersections analyzed in the Public Review Draft IS/MND” and thus the MND “thoroughly covered all the roadways that lead to the Project site.”
However, none of them have direct access into the proposed development, like Lockwood Avenue and Outlet Center Drive do. These two smaller roads have a fraction of the overall existing traffic in comparison to the larger roads of Rose, Rice or Gonzalez. But they have the same amount of new traffic as the larger roads. The relative increase on these two smaller roads would therefore be higher than on the larger roads with higher existing traffic, since both have the same set amount of increased traffic. The response does not meaningfully address this issue, and we believe a traffic noise study should have been conducted on Lockwood Avenue and Outlet Center Drive.

Conclusion
We believe that there is a good chance that the project may create significant noise and vibration impacts, which are unaddressed by the MND and the associated response. Let us know if you have any questions.

Very truly yours, WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan, Associate
882
Via Email
April 12, 2024
Joe Pearson II, Planning Manager
Community Development Department,
City of Oxnard
214 South C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration
Lockwood III Apartments Project (Record No. Record No. 24-01) Dear Mr. Pearson and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and working in and around the City of Oxnard (“City”). This letter is with regard to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Lockwood III Apartments Project (Record No. 24-01), which proposes development of a 225,348 square foot multifamily development building (“Project”).

After careful review of the IS/MND and its accompanying documents prepared by Environmental Science Associates (“ESA”), SAFER believes that the IS/MND is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act, and that an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. As explained in more detail below, there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts related to biological resources, air quality, and noise.

Furthermore, the MND’s proposed mitigated measures inadequately address the Project’s environmental impacts, and as such conflict with the air quality policies pursuant to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by expert biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, indoor air quality expert Francis Offermann, CIH, and the expert acoustical consulting firm Wilson Ihrig. Our expert comments and CVs are attached as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.

SAFER requests that the City not proceed with certifying the MND and to instead prepare an EIR to ensure that potentially significant adverse impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.
883
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located at 2151 Lockwood Street, in Oxnard, California. The Applicant, SVM Development LLC, Inc., proposes the construction of a new multifamily residential development comprised of 234 dwelling units located within buildings up to five-stories, all situated atop a two-level subterranean parking garage with 351 parking spaces.

The Project gross floor area measures 225,348 square feet and the Project site sits on approximately 5.17 acres, with sensitive receptors surrounding the site. The total residential space would be 201,115 SF; covered balconies, patios, parking and walkways would comprise 75,250 SF; corridors would comprise 40,497 SF; balconies 22,610 SF; utility space 16,710 SF; and community space 13,609 SF. The remaining SF would be comprised of corridor and vertical circulation (2,668 SF) and non-conditioned building (592 SF).

LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.)

The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed selfgovernment.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.

Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant 884
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.

Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.

The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.

Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74.

The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).

DISCUSSION
I. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Biological Resources Impacts.

An EIR is required because substantial evidence in the record indicates a fair argument that the Project will have significant biological impacts. Specifically, expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the Project and MND document and concluded that the Project site has value as a habitat for special status species and that the Project will have significant impacts on biological resources. Dr. Smallwood’s comments are supported by a site visit by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood (“Ms. Smallwood”). (Ex. A, p. 1.) Ms. Smallwood is an expert wildlife ecologist with a focus on urban ecology, avian ecology, and habitat conservation. Ms. Smallwood visited the site for approximately 3.5 hours on March 28, 2024, 885
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

starting at 7:26 am. (Id.) She walked the site’s perimeter, using binoculars to scan and a camera to capture wildlife. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CVs are attached Exhibit A.

For the following reasons set forth below, the City should not certify the MND and must instead prepare and circulate an EIR for the Project.

A. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Describe the Project’s Environmental Setting.

The City inadequately characterized the existing environmental setting and the site’s ability to provide habitat for special-status species. Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R., § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
“…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.” (Emphasis added.)
(See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124- 125.) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-123.)
The field survey prepared by ESA, which was used to inform the environmental setting, is deficient. The reconnaissance survey concluded that a mere three species were detected at the Project site. However, as Dr. Smallwood notes, ESA failed to include the methodological details that shaped the survey findings, information that is essential “to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.” (Ex. A, p. 15.) Of the three species detected by ESA, Ms. Smallwood detected one during her site visit, but the rest of ESA’s findings and subsequent conclusion starkly differs from Ms.

Smallwood’s site visit and findings. (Id.) As Dr. Smallwood explains, it remains unclear as to why and how ESA’s survey omitted wildlife that were so abundant when Ms. Smallwood visited the Project site (Id.) The clear disparities between what ESA’s and Ms. Smallwood’s surveys as well as the unclear method in which ESA’s survey was performed and documented require additional review.

Furthermore, Ms. Smallwood observed 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at and/or near the Project site, three of which were special-status species. (Ex. A, p. 3, Table 1.) These species include the Western gull (Larus occidentalis), which is classified as “Birds of Conservation 886
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

Concern.”1 (Id.) Birds of Conservation Concern include “migratory nongame birds that without additional conservation action are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.”2 Ms. Smallwood also observed the American kestrel (Falco sparverius) actively hunting on-site as well as Red-tailed hawk flying nearby. Both species are considered Birds of Prey, which are a valuable resource to the State of California, and are therefore protected under state law.3 (Id.) “Special Status Species” is a universal term used in the scientific community for species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and/or protection and should be, or have been, listed as rare, threatened or endangered by the Federal and/or State governments.”4
In addition, Dr. Smallwood opines that ESA’s survey may not have been performed thoroughly. While ESA instituted a 200-foot buffer surrounding the Project site, it failed to report on the California ground squirrels, which “is especially significant because burrowing owls rely on ground squirrels and their burrows, and the occurrence of ground squirrels greatly increases the likelihood of use of the site by burrowing owls.” (Id.) These observations undermine ESA’s survey credibility because the survey’s failure to identify suitable habitat for burrowing owls is incorrect. Therefore, the ESA survey underestimates the Project site’s suitability for habitat, especially for burrowing owls.

The desktop survey performed by ESA also is misleading, making the resulting MND document inaccurate. In omitting all special-status plant and wildlife species from its analysis, the MND explains that the disturbed conditions of the Project site mean that there is no suitable habitat on it. That is an incorrect conclusion to reach. Dr. Smallwood explains that even though most places in the state is disturbed to some degree, “no explanation is provided of why disturbance at the project site prevents all of these species whereas disturbance elsewhere does not prevent the occurrences of the same species.” (Ex. A, 17.) In fact, “[o]f the seven species the IS/MND determines to have low occurrence potential, two have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site and three have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. The documented proximities of these species do not comport with the IS/MND’s determinations.” (Id.)
As further explained by Dr. Smallwood, the MND makes numerous incorrect assertions based on the same logic that the Project site’s disturbed nature prevents any habitat from being deemed suitable. Given the abundance of wildlife detected on the Project site, the MND is deficient in explaining why habitat for special-status species is not available on the site whereas both common and special-status species have been observed utilizing the Project site as habitat.

Unfortunately, ESA’s lack of detail in preparing the survey does not answer the logical gaps in the MND.
1 See, US Fish & Wildlife Service (“USFW”), Birds of Conservation Concern 2021, pp. 18-19 https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf. 2 Id., p. 4. 3 See, Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513, and California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Sections 251.1, 652 and 783-786.6 4 Sacramento County, Planning and Environmental Review, “Special Status Species,” https://planning.saccounty.net/InterestedCitizens/Pages/ER_SpecialStatusSpecies. 887
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

Dr. Smallwood recommends preparing additional, and more detailed, surveys in order to better capture the existing environmental setting and site conditions for both wildlife and plant species. He also adds that there needs to be a clearer explanation as to why the MND reaches its conclusions regarding wildlife habitat for special-status species whereas the site conditions observed in the March 28, 2024 site visit by Ms. Smallwood underline the critical importance of the Project site for both common and special-status wildlife species alike. Dr. Smallwood thus explains that the City must prepare additional surveys to obtain a true inventory of the wildlife at the Project site.

Clearly, the IS/MND fails to accurately describe the Project’s environmental setting. A new CEQA document is therefore required.

B. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts on Wildlife.

An EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Stanislaus Audubon v. Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151 (1995)). Dr. Smallwood’s findings related to habitat loss, wildlife movement, collisions from windows and traffic, as well as impacts from domesticated animals underline the importance of preparing an EIR.
a. Habitat Loss.

Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will have adverse impacts on special status species through direct loss of habitat. (Ex. A, 24.) For example, Dr. Smallwood’s analysis of the Project site’s productive capacity finds that the Project would deny the ability to host 26 bird nests and close to a hundred birds every season. (Ex. A. p. 17.) This is especially concerning since at least four special-status species have been observed utilizing or flying over the Project site. In conjunction, then, the Project will result in the loss of foraging area for special status species. (Id, 25.).
b. Wildlife Movement.

Dr. Smallwood additionally points out that the Project will adversely impacts wildlife movement. He concludes that volant wildlife use the site as a stopover area. The project would cut wildlife off from one of the last remaining stopovers and staging opportunities in the project area, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites.” (Ex. A. p.

17.) Dr. Smallwood points out that the nearby Rubio Wash is a feature likely to be followed by wildlife, which increases the importance of the Project site to wildlife. (Id.) c. Collisions and Traffic.

The IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impacts due to bird-window collisions. Dr.

Smallwood concludes that the extensive use of glass in the 5-story buildings will lead to 888
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

increased bird-window collisions, and that the Project does not adequately consider the impacts that the height of the building would have on birds, during both the day and at night. (Ex.A, 26-

27.) He notes that there are “96 special status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere.” (Id.) While MND does not adequately detail to what extent glass windows will be used for the Project, Dr. Smallwood predicts that many of these birds are likely to experience window collisions. (Id.) As such, Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project will cause 292 bird deaths due to window collisions each year, with a significant amount of these birds being protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. (Id., 29.) Furthermore, the IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impacts related to wildlife traffic fatalities. Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project will generate 22,242,187.5 annual vehicle miles travelled. (Id. p. 31). He predicts that this will result in 2,008 wildlife fatalities per year. (Id.).
d. Impacts from Domestic Animals.

Domesticated animals like cats and dogs will be introduced to the Project site and will pose a potentially significant impact on wildlife species. In particular, the Project proposed to integrate infrastructures such as a dog run on the Project site, thereby encouraging dogs on and around the Project site, but does not analyze how the introduction of dogs may adversely impact wildlife that interact on the Project site. Furthermore, it is well documented that domesticated animals such as dogs carry parasites and other diseases that may likely “spill-over to wildlife of the immediate area or downstream to marine mammals at the coast. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts to wildlife caused by the dog park.” (Id., 32.)
Dr. Smallwood proposes numerous mitigation measures that could vastly reduce the above impacts, such as avoiding construction during nesting season, applying bird-safe window treatments, landscaping measures and many others. These mitigation measures should be analyzed in an EIR and implemented if feasible. Since there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have adverse biological impacts, an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate those impacts.

II. The MND Fails to Adequately Address the Project’s Cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources.

An EIR must be prepared to discuss significant cumulative impacts. Dr. Smallwood found the MND’s discussion of cumulative impacts to wildlife to be flawed. (Ex. A, p. 27.) CEQA Guidelines section 15130(a). This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083, which requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if “the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. . . . ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” “Cumulative impacts” are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or 889
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

increase other environmental impacts.” CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a). “[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.” CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a).
“The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (“CBE v. CRA”), (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 117. A legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis views a particular project over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. “Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.” CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b). As the court stated in CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal. App. 4th at 114:

Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.
(Citations omitted).

In Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d at 718, the court concluded that an EIR inadequately considered an air pollution (ozone) cumulative impact. The court said: “The [ ] EIR concludes the project’s contributions to ozone levels in the area would be immeasurable and, therefore, insignificant because the [cogeneration] plant would emit relatively minor amounts of [ozone] precursors compared to the total volume of [ozone] precursors emitted in Kings County. The EIR’s analysis uses the magnitude of the current ozone problem in the air basin in order to trivialize the project’s impact.” The court concluded: “The relevant question to be addressed in the EIR is not the relative amount of precursors emitted by the project when compared with preexisting emissions, but whether any additional amount of precursor emissions should be considered significant in light of the serious nature of the ozone problems in this air basin.”5 The Kings County case was reaffirmed in CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 116, where the court rejected cases with a narrower construction of “cumulative impacts.”
5 Los Angeles Unified v. City of Los Angeles, 58 Cal.App.4th at 1024-1026 found an EIR inadequate for concluding that a project's additional increase in noise level of another 2.8 to 3.3 dBA was insignificant given that the existing noise level of 72 dBA already exceeded the regulatory recommended maximum of 70 dBA. The court concluded that this "ratio theory" trivialized the project's noise impact by focusing on individual inputs rather than their collective significance. The relevant issue was not the relative amount of traffic noise resulting from the project when compared to existing traffic noise, but whether any additional amount of traffic noise should be considered significant given the nature of the existing traffic noise problem. 890
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

Similarly, in Friends of Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, the court recently held that the EIR for a project that would divert water from the Eel River had to consider the cumulative impacts of the project together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects that also divert water from the same river system. The court held that the EIR even had to disclose and analyze projects that were merely proposed, but not yet approved. The court stated, CEQA requires “the Agency to consider ‘past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts . . . .’ (Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (b)(1)(A).) The Agency must interpret this requirement in such a way as to ‘afford the fullest possible protection of the environment.’” Id., at 867, 869. The court held that the failure of the EIR to analyze the impacts of the project together with other proposed projects rendered the document invalid. “The absence of this analysis makes the EIR an inadequate informational document.” (Id., at 872.)
The court in Citizens to Preserve Ojai v. Bd. of Supervisors, 176 Cal.App.3d 421 (1985), held that an EIR prepared to consider the expansion and modification of an oil refinery was inadequate because it failed to consider the cumulative air quality impacts of other oil refining and extraction activities combined with the project. The court held that the EIR’s use of an Air District Air Emissions Inventory did not constitute an adequate cumulative impacts analysis.

The court ordered the agency to prepare a new EIR analyzing the combined impacts of the proposed refinery expansion together with the other oil extraction projects.

Here, the MND falsely assumes that cumulative impacts would be less than significant under the false understanding that a given impact is a residual effect of incomplete mitigation of project-specific impacts. (Ex. A, p. 32.) Furthermore, the MND implies that implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will resolve such residual impacts. However, not only is that incorrect, as explained in more detail below, but such conclusion runs counter to CEQA’s cumulative impacts assessment. As Dr. Smallwood’s own research has highlighted, “[e]ven should project-level mitigation be implemented as proposed in the IS/MND, development projects are causing cumulative impacts in California.” (Id.) Dr. Smallwood has explained the wildlife impacts associated with the Project, but the MND fails to provide an adequate analysis and how such cumulative impacts can be mitigated. Thus, the MND’s conclusion that the cumulative impacts would be less than significant is unfounded and should be revised.

III. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Health Risks from Indoor Air Quality Emissions.

The Project cannot proceed with an MND because there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will result in adverse air quality impacts. Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, PE, CIH, conducted a review of the Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. (Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (April 2, 2024)). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose residents of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. As discussed below and in Mr. 891
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

Offermann’s comments, the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to the air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents of the Project’s residential units. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and CV are attached as Exhibit B.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State as a toxic air contaminant (“TAC”). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) has established a significance threshold of health risks for carcinogenic TACs of 10 in one million. (Ex. B, p. 3.) Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, hotels, and commercial spaces contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a long period of time. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” (Id., pp. 2-3.) Notably, the MND includes some discussion of impacts or health risks, but no required mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project.

Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. (Ex. B, pp. 3-4.) This is more than 12 times SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold of 10 per million.

Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. Lakewood Street, East Gonzalez Road, and the Ventura Freeway (HWY 101), etc.) and the high levels of PM2.5 already present in the ambient air. (Ex. B, p. 10.) No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future residents of the Project, meaning that the City cannot conclude with substantial evidence that the Project will not result in significant air quality impacts.

Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. (Ex. B, p. 5.) Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. (Id., pp. 12-13.) The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. (See, Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 [“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”].) In addition to assessing the Project’s 892
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

potential health impacts to residents, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the SCAQMD level. (Ex. B, pp. 6-10.) Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.

While the MND includes some analysis of indoor air quality impacts and associated toxic air contaminants, it ultimately concludes that the Project will have less than significant air quality impacts. (MND, p. 31.) This conclusion is contrasted by the MND’s Air Quality analysis, which finds that “[i]nstallation of MERV filters with a minimum rating of 14 would reduce cancer risk impacts to levels below the significance threshold. Thus, the cancer and chronic risk for residential receptors due would not be considered significant for all residential receptors at the Project site with installation of MERV filters with a minimum rating of 14.” (Air Quality, Health Risk Assessment, Greenhouse Gas, Energy Analysis, p. 2.) While this may not seem to be in conflict with the MND’s analysis, the Air Quality analysis implicitly requires the installation of filters, a mitigation measure, in order to reach its finding of no significance. As such, the Air Quality analysis supports Mr. Offermann’s findings, and, as explained in detail below, more adequate enforcement mechanisms must be in place in order to ensure that the proposed mitigation measure is implemented.

The failure to adequately address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801.) However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. (Id. at 801 [“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”].) In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” (Id. at 800 [emph. added].) The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project. Residents and commercial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language. CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must 893
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly.’” (CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 [emph. in original].) Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” (Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d).) It goes without saying that the future residents of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.

Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.

IV. The MND’s Proposed Mitigation Measures are Unenforceable and Ineffective.

CEQA requires that policies and mitigation measures be enforceable and effective. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1) & (2).) Policies that have no standards cannot be enforced.

Mitigation measures must be effective. In Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308-309, mitigation calling for a permit for sludge disposal was improperly deferred because there was no evidence of feasibility: “the record discloses that the applicant presented no plans for sludge disposal and that no solution was readily available.” (Id. at 308.) a. Biological Resources.

The Project’s only proposed mitigation measures for biological resources will certainly not reduce Project-related impacts to a level below significance. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 only discusses the preparation of a preconstruction survey. First, the mitigation measure incorrectly relies on an outdated breeding season because the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) now recognizes the breeding season to be between February 1 to September 15. The MND skips a couple weeks as a result. Secondly, Dr. Smallwood explains that a preconstruction survey is not an adequate substitute for a detection survey, which this Project needs. The measure is therefore ineffective at reducing impacts below significance.

Additionally, as described in the MND, performance of the preconstruction survey means that the measure’s protections will not extend to future breeding seasons and would likely lead to the permanent destruction of the site’s productive capacity for burrowing owls. (Ex. A, 34.) Also, Dr. Smallwood’s comments above prove that the site is being used by many species in addition to just burrowing owls. This mitigation measure does nothing to protect the other species that have already been identified on the Project site, including special-status species. As such, this mitigation measure is inadequate because it also does nothing to mitigate the impacts to the identified special-status species.

The mitigation measure also allows unfettered control for a biologist to make critical determinations. In particular, the language of this mitigation measure “allows a single individual 894
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

(qualified biologist) to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine and adjust the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria and is unenforceable.” (Ex. A, p. 34.) As a result of the absence of objective enforcement mechanisms, this mitigation measure is insufficient and cannot be reflied on to adequately bring the potentially significant impacts to a level below significance.

An EIR is required to analyze the feasibility, enforceability, and effectiveness of such proposed mitigation measure. Dr. Smallwood also suggests multiple mitigation measures related to protecting wildlife from traffic, controlling pests, funding wildlife rehabilitation facilities, and applying native landscaping on the Project site, among others. (Ex. A, p. 36.) b. Air Quality Impacts.

The MND fails to mandate mitigation measures related to indoor air quality. A public agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation measure because no record evidence existed that replacement water was available).) Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other legally binding instruments. (14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(2).) The Air Quality analysis and related technical documents of the MND address the indoor air quality impacts associated with exposure to formaldehyde. Specifically, the MND explains that high efficiency minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) filters of MERV 14 or greater will be installed throughout the Project, thereby bringing the cancer risk at the maximum exposed receptor to 5.18 in one million. (MND, p. 37.) However, there are a few issues related to this evaluation.

While filters are proposed to be installed for the Project, there is no guarantee that such feature will actually take place. As explained above, Mr. Offermann’s findings constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument of the Project’s adverse environmental impacts. As such, the installation of filters as mitigation measures should not be read as a suggestion, but rather a mandate to reduce impacts below significance. While the MND document explains that installation will occur in compliance with local ordinances, there is no binding guarantee that such mitigation measure will be enforced. (MND, p. 37.) This is apparent from the fact that the Air Quality analysis does not identify any air quality-related mitigation measures to be included for the Project.

Tfhe proposed mitigation measure of installing high-quality MERV filters must be included as a mitigation measure in an amended MND and must be enforceable to ensure that cancer risk impacts are assuredly brought down to a level below significance. 895
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

V. The Project Conflicts and is Inconsistent With Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Policy.

Where a local or regional policy of general applicability, such as an ordinance, is adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, a conflict with that policy in itself indicates a potentially significant impact on the environment. (Pocket Protectors v. Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.App.4th 903.) Indeed, any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable plans must be discussed in an EIR. (14 CCR § 15125(d); City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unif.

School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 918; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874 (EIR inadequate when Lead Agency failed to identify relationship of project to relevant local plans).) A Project’s inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 783-4, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177; see also, County of El Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 (fact that a project may be consistent with a plan, such as an air plan, does not necessarily mean that it does not have significant impacts).) Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food and Agriculture (2005) 136 Ca1.App.4th 1, 17 (“[c]ompliance with the law is not enough to support a finding of no significant impact under the CEQA.”). The recent Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358 echoes Pocket Protectors. These both apply the fair argument standard to a potential inconsistency with a plan adopted for environmental protection. Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 says an EIR needs to analyze any topic for which a fair argument of significant impact is raised.

As applied here, an EIR is warranted because of the Project’s conflict with the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (“VCAPCD”) policy. According to the MND, VCAPCD cancer risk threshold is 10 in one million. To reduce cancer below significance, the MND implies the installation of MERV filters. (MND, p. 37.) As explained above, however, installation of the filters is not a binding measure, thereby failing to guarantee that cancer risk will fall below significance thresholds pursuant to VCAPCD. Because there is no guarantee of filter installation, cancer risk would not be reduced to a level in compliance with VCAPCD’s threshold, thereby being in direct conflict with VCAPCD.

Since the project is inconsistent with a VCAPCD policy intended to protect human health and the environment, this is evidence of a fair argument that that the project may have significant 896
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

adverse environmental impacts. As such, approval of the Project under the IS/MND is improper, and the City must instead prepare and analyze Project impacts under an EIR.

VI. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impacts that were Inadequately Addressed.

CEQA prohibits the use of an MND where there is substantial evidence of a fair argument of environmental impacts. SAFER’s independent experts at Wilson Ihrig reviewed the Project and related documents, including the Noise Study, and concluded that the MND’s noise report is unsubstantiated and there exists potentially significant noise impacts. Wilson Ihrig is an expert and renowned firm within the field of noise and vibration consulting. For this reason, an MND is improper and the City should instead prepare an EIR. Wilson Ihrig’s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit C.

The MND’s Noise Study potentially underestimates the Project’s noise impacts because it erroneously utilizes a less stringent threshold assessment. In particular, the Noise Study relies on a threshold adopted from the FTA Construction Noise Handbook, but “the FTA advises assuming a usage factor of 1 when using a general assessment”, which this Project’s Noise Study does. Reviewing the Noise Study’s assessment, Wilson Ihrig underlines that such approach “significantly underestimates the potential impact of construction noise, especially since the modeled noise for the Site Preparation and Grading phases are 7 dBA over the 80 dBA threshold.” (Id.) In fact, Wilson Ihrig predicts that the Noise Study’s general assessment underestimates the noise impacts by seven decibels across the board. (Id.) The MND’s Noise Study, therefore, fails to capture the true extent of the Project’s noise impacts, and must instead review and assess these issues in an EIR.
a. The MND Fails to Accurately Analyze the Project’s Noise Impacts.

The MND additionally fails to sufficiently review or completely omits critical analyses related to the Project’s noise impacts. For example, the Noise Study fails to evaluate the Project’s construction-related vibration impacts on off-site sensitive receptors. Wilson Ihrig underlines that the FTA guidance relied on for the Noise Study explains that “[b]uildings founded on the soil near the construction site [can] respond to these [construction] vibrations with … slight damage at the highest [vibration] levels.” (FTA Guidance, p. 182.) While the MND acknowledges the presence of multiple sensitive receptors near the Project site, including medical buildings, senior living facilities, and a university campus, there is a reasonable possibility that the Project’s construction vibration may adversely affect such buildings. (MND, pp. 88-89.) Yet, the MND fails to do so. The omission of construction vibration effects on sensitive receptors under-analyzes the Project’s impacts, and Wilson Ihrig asserts that it should studied in an EIR. (Ex. C, p. 3.)
Furthermore, the MND’s analysis of operational noise impacts is incomplete. For example, operational noise impacts from rooftop mechanical equipment would increase ambient 897
April 12, 2024
Comment on IS/MND for Lockwood III Apartments Project
Oxnard, CA

levels beyond significance thresholds. (Ex. C, p. 3.) However, Wilson Ihrig explains that “[t]here are no calculations nor any evidence provided that demonstrates mechanical equipment used in the Project will not be potentially significant at nearby sensitive receivers.” (Id.) The MND fails to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts from off-site operations.

While the Noise Study assesses the Project’s noise impacts along some streets and roads, it does not evaluate the potential traffic noise increase along Lockwood Avenue and Outlet Center Drive (Ex. C, p. 3.) Wilson Ihrig explains that “[t]his is particularly egregious for Lockwood Street, which is the main access road in and out of the [Project] site. Current traffic levels are presumably low,” and the potential of doubling traffic also means the increase of noise levels. (Id.) Wilson Ihrig asserts that such noise levels must be assessed in an EIR and ensure that the Project’s noise levels during operation would not exceed significance thresholds and that no mitigation measures must be implemented. (Id.)

CONCLUSION
SAFER has submitted substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project will have adverse environmental effects, and the MND prepared for the Project does not adequately analyze or mitigated the potentially significant environmental impacts stemming from the Project. For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City decline to certify the MND and to instead prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Marjan R. Abubo

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
898
Exhibit A
899
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Joe Pearson II
City of Oxnard Community Development Department
Planning Division
214 South C Street
Oxnard, California 93030 31 March 2024
RE: Lockwood III Apartments IS/MND
Dear Mr. Pearson,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that could result from the proposed Lockwood III Apartments Project, which I understand would add a fivestory, 67.5-foot-tall, 373,069-square-foot residential building with 234 residential units and a 1,247 square-foot dog run among other amenities on 5.17 acres on Lockwood Street. I comment on the characterization of the existing environmental setting and on analyses of impacts to biological resources in the IS/MND (City of Oxnard 2024).

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 3.63 hours from 07:26 to 11:04 hours on 28 March 2024. She walked the site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.

Conditions were cloudy to sunny with 3 mph north wind and temperatures of 51-61° F.

The site was covered in annual grass with a few native shrubs and bordered by ornamental trees (Photos 1-3).
900
2 Photos 1-3. Views of the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Noriko detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including three species with special status (Table 1). Noriko saw American kestrel hunting on site (Photos 4 and 5), bushtit (Photos 6 and 16), western gull and barn swallow (Photos 7 and 8), white-crowned sparrow (Photos 9 and 10), yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 11 and 12), Cassin’s kingbird and American crow (Photos, 13, 14, and 17), European starling (Photos 15 and 20), common raven (Photo 18), house sparrow 901
3 (Photo 19), house finch and rock pigeon (Photos 21 and 22), Botta’s pocket gopher (Photo 23), Great Basin fence lizard and western side-blotched lizard (Photos 24 and 25), among the other species listed in Table 1.

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.63 hours of survey on 28 March 2024.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes
Many, displays to each
other
Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Flew over
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Flew over Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Flew over
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Flew over, calling
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC
Many flew over, perched
nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Two soaring nearby American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Caught two lizards on site Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Displayed to each other American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Flew over, foraged nearby
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Gathered nest material
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Just off site
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native
Gathered nest material,
nesting in tower on site
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native Just off site House finch Haemorphous mexicanus
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Many, foraged California towhee Melozone crissalis Just off site
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi Calling from adjacent site Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Many burrows
1 BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
902
4 Photos 4 and 5. American kestrel flying with two separate lizards that it caught on site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 6. Bushtit on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. 903
5 Photos 7 and 8. Western gull (left), and barn swallow (right) flying over the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 9 and 10. White-crowned sparrows on the project site, 28 March 2024.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
904
6 Photos 11 and 12. Yellow-rumped warblers on the project site, 28 March 2024.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 13 and 14. Cassin’s kingbirds displaying to each other (left) and an American crow sitting on its nest just off site (left), 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 905
7 Photos 15 and 16. European starling with nest material (left), and bushtit with nest material (right) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 17 and 18. American crow (left), and common raven (right) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
906
8 Photos 19 and 20. House sparrow adjacent to the project site (left), and European starling on the project site (right), 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 21 and 22. House finch (left), and rock pigeon (right) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
907
9 Photo 23. Botta’s pocket gopher across the street from the project site, 28 March 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
908
10 Photos 24 and 25. Great Basin fence lizard (left) and western side-blotched lizard (bottom) on the project site, 28 March 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 909
11 I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her 28 March 2024 survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case, the model predicts many more species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected on the morning of March 28th (Figure 1). Unfortunately, I do not know the identities of the undetected species, but the pattern in her data indicates more species could have been detected after more survey time at the site. Importantly, however, the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 28 March 2024 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrences.

Figure 1.

Actual and
predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and
the elapsed
survey time
based on
Noriko’s
visual-scan
survey on 28
March 2024.

Note that the
relationship
would differ if
the survey was
based on
another
method or
during another
season.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Cumulative number of special-status
species of wildlife detected
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 27.8
Actual count of species
910
12 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 and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅𝑅� = 1
1�𝑎𝑎+𝑏𝑏×(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻)𝑐𝑐 , where 𝑅𝑅� represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to

1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. 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 would have detected 14.3 species over my first 3.63 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (3.63 hours to match the 3.63 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 25% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 25 species Noriko detected after her 3.63 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 25% 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, Noriko would likely detect 25

0.25 � = 100 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 100 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 12 specialstatus species of vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 100 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 12 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her survey to inventory use of the project site by wildlife.

Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a much more species-rich wildlife community than characterized in the IS/MND (see below), and warrants a serious survey effort.
911
13 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅𝑅�, 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. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these needed steps have been inadequate.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
To CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
912
14 On 8 August 2023, ESA deployed a biologist to perform a reconnaissance survey “to characterize existing conditions and determine the potential for sensitive biological resources [later said to be special-status species of plants and wildlife] to occur within the Project site or in a 200-foot buffer area.” According to the IS/MND, “land cover types were characterized and delineated,” as well. Unfortunately, the IS/MND does not report important methodological details that the reader needs to assess the meaning of the survey results. The IS/MND neglects to report when the survey started and how long the survey lasted. As far as I know, the survey could have started at the worst time of day for detecting wildlife, e.g., at 14:00 hours, and it could have lasted a mere 15 minutes.

Also unreported is how ESA’s biologist assessed the project site’s potential for supporting various special-status species.

The only quantifiable outcome of ESA’s survey was the number of wildlife species detected. ESA’s biologist saw three species of vertebrate wildlife: American crow, California gull and black phoebe. Two of these species were not detected by Noriko Smallwood, who surveyed the site on 28 March 2024 on my behalf. However, ESA’s biologist did not detect 24 of the 25 species that Noriko detected. In only 3.63 hours of survey, Noriko detected more than eight times the number of species that ESA’s biologist detected. Whereas there are nearly always differences in which species are detected between surveys at a given site, Noriko and I do not experience anywhere near this magnitude of difference when we repeat our own surveys at a given site. The reconnaissance survey completed by ESA is inadequate, and it has been used to inaccurately characterize the existing environmental setting of the project site. Many more than three species of vertebrate wildlife exist at the project site.

ESA documented little of the breeding activity that Noriko saw and photographed (see Table 1 and Photos 13 to 16 and 24). Given the body sizes and ubiquity of some of the species, it is difficult to understand how they could have been missed by ESA. Noriko saw many western gulls at the site. Western gulls are large birds. How did ESA not see the western gulls? Red-tailed hawks are large birds. Cassin’s kingbirds and mourning doves are highly noticeable. Botta’s pocket gophers leave evidence of their presence all over the place, and Noriko even photo-captured at least one gopher looking about from one of its burrows (Photo 23). According to Noriko, lizards were abundant at the site, and sufficiently abundant that she witnessed one or more American kestrels capture at least two of them (see Photos 4 and 5). How did ESA miss all of these species? Whereas ESA reportedly surveyed a 200-foot buffer around the project site, it missed the California ground squirrels just to the south side of Lockwood Street. The occurrence of the squirrels is especially significant because burrowing owls rely on ground squirrels and their burrows, and the occurrence of ground squirrels greatly increases the likelihood of use of the site by burrowing owls. According to ESA, “Suitable habitat for this species [Burrowing owl] was not detected. The vegetation was dense and tall and the small mammal burrows detected were not the appropriate size or morphology for this species.” That ESA failed to detect burrowing owl is of no surprise to me, considering that ESA detected 12% of the species Noriko did, but ESA’s determination of the site’s unsuitability to burrowing owls is grossly inaccurate. Photos 1–3 depict a grassland environment that typifies the environments where I have studied 913
15 burrowing owls in the highest-recorded densities in the published literature (Smallwood et al. 2013, Smallwood and Morrison 2018)). Furthermore, there were ground squirrels across the street.

A protocol-level detection survey (CDFW 2012) is warranted for burrowing owls at the project site, but has yet to be completed. Furthermore, ESA’s reconnaissance survey achieved very few if any of the minimum standards of reconnaissance survey for specialstatus species of plants (CDFW 2018). Conclusions of potential project impacts to biological resources are too poorly founded on wildlife and plant surveys to be relied upon for decision-making.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths.

ESA did not reportedly review eBird (https://eBird.org) or iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org) for documented occurrence records at or near the project site. Instead, ESA queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for documented occurrences of special-status species within the USGS Quadrangle of the project site and the immediately surrounding Quadrangles. By taking this approach, the IS/MND immediately screens out many special-status species from further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” ESA and the IS/MND misuse CNDDB.

CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to CNDDB. Furthermore, CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of CNDDB. The lack of many CNDDB records for species recently assigned special status had nothing to do with whether the species’ geographic ranges overlap the project site, but rather more to do with the brief time for records to have accumulated since the species were assigned special status. And because negative 914
16 findings are not reported to CNDDB, CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods of species undocumented on the project site.

In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 121 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Of these 121 species, 4 (3%) were recorded on or just off of the project site, and another 23 (19%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 52 (43%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 33 (27%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Nearly two-thirds (65%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports multiple special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status species than is characterized in the IS/MND.

The IS/MND analyzes the occurrence likelihoods of only 8 (6.6%) of the special-status species in my Table 2. The IS/MND’s smaller analytical effort results from its misuse of CNDDB to screen out most of the species that could potentially occur at the project site (see comments above). Of the species the IS/MND analyzes, the IS/MND determines the occurrence likelihoods to be moderate for one species – California horned lark, and low for the other seven species. And for 113 special-status species in my Table 2, the IS/MND provides no occurrence likelihood determinations at all, including for four species documented on or next to the project site. The analysis is flawed from the IS/MND’s initial misuse of CNDDB to screen out special-status species from next-steps.

Its determinations of occurrence likelihoods are also flawed (see below).

The IS/MND provides one over-arching reason for its decision to omit all special-status plant species and 45 special-status species of wildlife from its analysis, which was the disturbed nature of the study area and the absence of suitable habitat. However, no explanation is provided of why disturbance at the project site prevents all of these species whereas disturbance elsewhere does not prevent the occurrences of the same species. Every place in California is disturbed to some degree. The IS/MND provides no evidence of a threshold of disturbance that prevents the occurrences of special-status species of plants and animals, nor does it prevent evidence that such a threshold has been breached.

Of the seven species the IS/MND determines to have low occurrence potential, two have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site and three have been documented within 1.5 and 4 miles of the site. The documented proximities of these species do not comport with the IS/MND’s determinations.

Based on environmental conditions where I have observed California horned larks at other locations, I see no reason why horned larks should be determined to have a high rather than a moderate occurrence likelihood at the project site. Photos 1–3 show an environment that typifies where I have found this species. The site appears like the type of site where California horned larks breed.
915
17 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko.

Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Low Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low In region
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC In region
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low Nearby Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Low In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Nearby California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In range Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Nearby
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus SSC2 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC Nearby Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Lesser sandhill crane Antigone canadensis canadensis SSC3 In region American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Nearby
916
18 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC In region Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC Very close
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC On site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Observed On site California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP Nearby Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL Nearby
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 Nearby
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Nearby
Wood stork Mycteria americana SSC1 Nearby
Brandt’s cormorant Urile penicillatus BCC Nearby
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1, BCC Very close California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus FP In region Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Nearby 917
19 Common name Species name Status
1 Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Low Nearby
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Low Nearby Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Low Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Nearby
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Nearby
918
20 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Moderate Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Belding’s savannah sparrow 3 Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi CE, BCC Nearby Large-billed savannah sparrow 3 Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus SSC2 In region Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL Nearby Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC Very close
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In range 919
21 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
IS/MND
Data base
records, Site
visits
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In range Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list. 3 Uncertain of subspecies, but either resident Belding’s or wintering large-billed savannah sparrows. 920
22 For each of the species of wildlife the IS/MND determines to have low occurrence potential, flawed reasons are reported. For example, the IS/MND reports that “the site is frequently disturbed and lacks connectivity to high quality habitat” of Crotch’s bumble bee. Again, the IS/MND fails to define a disturbance threshold that prevents the species at issue. The IS/MND fails to define that level of connectivity to high quality habitat that is needed, nor does it explain what it means by high quality habitat. (Habitat quality is typically represented by measures of productivity.)
Referring to Monarch, the IS/MND reports that “Suitable roosting habitat for this species does not occur within the site and host plant species were not detected.” However, this reporting implies that roosting habitat is the only resource that needs to be considered for Monarch. It is not. According to the conservation strategy of the Western Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan, migratory habitats are no less important to the conservation of monarchs than are overwintering groves, and the Plan identifies urban areas as contributive to migratory habitat.

Referring to both coastal whiptail and coast horned lizard, the IS/MND reports that “Suitable habitat for this species does not occur within the site due to the existing level of disturbance from operating activities.” Repeating the flaw noted above, the IS/MND fails to define a disturbance threshold that prevents either species from occurring at the project site. How is it that western side-blotched lizards and Great Basin fence lizards both occur at the project site in abundance, but the disturbance of the site prevents the occurrences of special-status species? The IS/MND presents no evidence that either of these species should be determined to have low occurrence potential.

As for Ferruginous hawk, the IS/MND points out that “Suitable nesting habitat does not occur within the project site, however, there is low potential for foraging.” Whether nesting habitat is suitable on the project site is not an issue for this species. Ferruginous hawks nest far to the north, but must find sufficient forage in southern California over the winter in order to successfully nest up north. Ferruginous hawks are winter migrants to the area, and in my experience, they hunt over fields just like the project site (Photo 26). The project does not provide “low potential for foraging,” as there are many of the pocket gophers and other animals that ferruginous hawks hunt.

Referring to peregrine falcon, the IS/MND claims, “the closest foraging habitat is located over 2 miles northwest.” However, this assertion is inaccurate. The closest foraging opportunities are to be found on the project site. I have many times witnessed peregrine falcons foraging over fields just like the project site. For example, I witnessed multiple members of a family of peregrine falcons forage over a field I surveyed 14 times in Bakersfield, California – a field that was repeatedly disked and sometimes covered in trash. These peregrine falcons captured ground squirrels and birds (one was a mourning dove, which is a species Noriko saw on the project site) and carried them to their nest on a water tower 800 m away. Peregrine falcons could very well forage successfully at the project site, and they could nest in the tower mentioned by the ESA biologist. 921
23 Photo 26. A
ferruginous
hawk attempts
to grab a pocket
gopher on a
southern
California field
that looks not
too unlike the
project site.

POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. The accuracy of this analysis depends on an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting. In the case of the proposed project, the existing environmental setting has not been accurately characterized, and several important types of potential project impacts have been inadequately analyzed.

These types of impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, birdwindow collision mortality, wildlife-automobile collision mortality, house cat depredation, and parasitic loading from the dog run.

HABITAT LOSS
Between ESA’s and Noriko’s surveys, 27 species of vertebrate wildlife were documented on the project site, including 4 special-status species. Noriko’s findings examined through an analytical bridge to my research work at an expansive study site predicts use of the project site by at least 100 species of vertebrate wildlife including 12 special-status species. Converting the site to the impervious surfaces of an apartment complex and to open space to be used as a dog run would eliminate the project site’s productive capacity to all of the wildlife species that currently use it.

The IS/MND makes no attempt to estimate this lost capacity for any of the wildlife species potentially affected. In the case of birds, two methods exist for estimating the loss of productive capacity that would be caused by the project. One method would involve surveys to count the number of bird nests and chicks produced. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere.
922
24 Because the project is located within an area that has undergone severe habitat fragmentation, the habitat that remains in fragmented patches probably no longer supports its original productive capacity of wildlife (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity.

Habitat fragmentation multiplies the negative effects of habitat loss on the productive capacities of biological species (Smallwood 2015). Several studies have estimated total avian nest density at locations that had likewise been highly fragmented. Two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes within agricultural matrices had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. To acquire a total nest density closer to conditions in California, Noriko surveyed through the breeding season of 2023 over 4.29 acres of grassland in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, where she tabulated 3.72 bird nests/acre.

Applying her estimated total nest density to the project site’s 5.17 acres of grassland predicts 19 bird nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on Noriko’s review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I predict the project would cost California 26 nest attempts/year.

The loss of 19 nest sites and 26 nest attempts/year would qualify as significant project impacts that has not been quantitatively addressed in the IS/MND. But the impact would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as nest substrate is removed and foraging grounds 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 183 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 83 birds per year denied to California.

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, the IS/MND’s analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region is flawed and misleading. According to the IS/MND, “Wildlife corridors are not present within the Project site, which is surrounded by fencing and urban development. Thus, the Project would not result in impacts to existing wildlife corridors or affect wildlife movement.” The IS/MND’s conclusion lacks supporting evidence. The IS/MND reports no survey methodology designed to determine whether wildlife rely on the site for movement in the region. ESA implemented no sampling regime nor any program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns. ESA attempted neither to quantify nor even to qualitatively assess wildlife movement as evidence of the project’s contribution to movement in the region. The conclusion in the IS/MND regarding wildlife movement is only speculative and conclusory. Not only is the IS/MND’s 923
25 conclusion unfounded, but Noriko found that the site was heavily used by wildlife, including by birds flying to, from, and over the site. Because much of the surrounding area is developed, the site is one of the last remaining wildlife stopover opportunities in the region.

Furthermore, the IS/MND’s premise that a wildlife corridor must overlap the project site in order for the project to interfere with wildlife movement 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.

BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS
Considering the project would add a five-story, 67.5-foot-tall, 373,069-square-foot residential building with 234 residential units, along with many glass windows on the building’s facades, the IS/MND neglects a large portion of habitat that is essential to many species. To understand this part of their habitat, one must consider the definition of habitat, which is a species’ use of the environment (Hall et al. 1997, Morrison et al. 1998, Smallwood 2002). The gaseous atmosphere, or aerosphere, is a principal medium of life to volant animals such as birds (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat. Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and the site visits indicate there are 96 special-status species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 2). Of these, 3 have been recorded on or over the project site, 23 within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 50 within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 20 within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). The birds reported within all these distance domains from the project site can quickly fly those distances, so they would all be within short flights of the proposed project’s windows.

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 924
26 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, 925
27 their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.

Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and 926
28 Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

The IS/MND does not disclose the extent of glass windows and glass railings on the proposed new building. I therefore used the building schematics in the IS/MND to measure the extent of windows. I measured windows along 10% of the building’s façades, and then protected the total area of the windows measured to the entire building. I estimated 4,000 m2 of exterior glass, not including glass railings. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 4,000 m2 of window glass in the project, I predict annual bird deaths of 292 (95% CI: 174‒411).

The vast majority of these deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the recently revised California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts.

There is at least a fair argument for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impact of bird-glass collisions that might be caused by the project.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE
Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 27―29), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. 927
29 Photo 27. 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 28. Mourning dove killed by
vehicle on a California road. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.

Photo 29 Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County.

Photo taken on 10 November 2018.

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss 928
30 et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species).

VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife The IS/MND predicts 3,664,270 annual VMT. 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 predicted annual VMT, above, would predict 2,008 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause significant impacts to wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.

Given the predicted level of project-generated, traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of projectgenerated automobile traffic on wildlife.

WILDLIFE DEPREDATION BY HOUSE CATS
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed 234 residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017).

Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human, and 122 vertebrate 929
31 animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND predicts the project would add 912 new residents The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 401 new house cats, which would kill 48,922 vertebrate wildlife per year.

House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” (http://www.evotis.org/ toxoplasma-gondii- sea-otters/).

Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the IS/MND. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential impacts to wildlife due to depredation and parasite-loading by free-ranging house cats introduced by residents of the project. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.

DOG RUN
The project proposes the inclusion of a dog run, but the IS/MND does not analyze potential impacts to wildlife that could result from it. Dogs disturb and displace wildlife (Hennings 2016), and dog parks accumulate parasites. In one study of dog parks in Portugal (Ferreira et al. 2017), at least 7 different types of parasites were found in fecal and soil samples, and “the soil of all the parks was contaminated with hookworm eggs.” The parasite loading of the dog park could spill-over to wildlife of the immediate area or downstream to marine mammals at the coast. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts to wildlife caused by the dog park.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The IS/MND’s cumulative effects analysis is flawed. According to the IS/MND, “Because the Project could result in significant impacts related to biological resources …, the Project could contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources. This contribution could be cumulatively considerable and thus significant. With the implementation of [mitigation measure BIO-1] …, the Project’s impact related to biological resources … would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable and thus less than significant.” Essentially, the IS/MND implies that cumulative effects are simply residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts, and that no residual impacts would remain after the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1 – the only measure proposed. This notion is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative impacts and how to analyze them. If this was CEQA’s standard, then cumulative effects analysis 930
32 would be merely an analysis of mitigation efficacy. This is not how cumulative effects are to be analyzed; the cumulative effects analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Even should project-level mitigation be implemented as proposed in the IS/MND, development projects are causing cumulative impacts in California. To measure the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by mitigated development projects, Noriko Smallwood and I revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023).

We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures and existing policies and regulations.

A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project contributions to cumulative impacts to wildlife and plants in the region.

INSUFFICIENT MITIGATION
The only mitigation measure proposed in the IS/MND is a preconstruction survey for nesting birds:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: If construction activities occur within the bird nesting season (generally defined as February 15 through September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 7 days prior to the start of construction. If an active nest is observed within 500 feet of the proposed construction, the nest shall be avoided, and a suitable buffer zone shall be delineated in the field such that no impacts shall occur until the nest has been determined to be inactive by a qualified biologist. Construction buffers are generally 300 feet for passerines and up to 500 feet for raptor species; however, avoidance buffers may be reduced at the discretion of the biologist, depending on the location of the nest and species tolerance to human presence and construction-related noise.

If activities must take place within an established buffer, steps shall be taken to reduce indirect effects to nesting activity by actively reducing construction noise within proximity to a presumed nest location and/or installing temporary construction noise 931
33 barriers. If the reduction of noise is not feasible, construction activities shall be postponed until the nest is deemed inactive and/or the breeding season has concluded.

First, the avian breeding season recognized by the CDFW is now 1 February through 15 September. The IS/MND is skipping the first two weeks of the recognized avian breeding season.

Second, I concur with the implementation of preconstruction surveys, but it should be understood that preconstruction surveys are no substitute for detection surveys. It should be understood that preconstruction surveys, although warranted, actually achieve very little. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season, and these observations are to find the nest sites of single targeted species (Smallwood et al. 2013, Smallwood and Smallwood 2021). To identify the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a much greater survey effort.

To attempt to find all of the nest sites of all avian species, I completed surveys to complete the steps needed to count nest attempts of all birds on a research site. I constrained my surveys to a relatively small area of 12.74 acres, because I knew that finding all of the nest sites would be extremely difficult. I surveyed this site 30 times from March through mid-August 2023. Any one of my surveys might have resulted in one or a few nest detections, but my estimated total number of nests was 216. Cavity nests proved the easiest to find, because cavity nesters can more effectively defend their nests against predators and therefore have less need to hide the whereabouts of their nests. Nests of large raptors and herons were also relatively easy to find. I could also identify other birds engaged in nest attempts, but those birds using small cup nests in trees and shrubs and nests on the ground carefully avoided visits to their nests in my presence. Small birds in trees and shrubs and ground nesters are highly vulnerable to predation, and thus the most cryptic of nesters. Whereas I estimated lesser goldfinch as the most prolific nester on the study site, I found not one of their nest structures. Even the nesters that nest right out in the open are highly capable of hiding their nests sites from human eyes.

Even assuming all the nests could be found, the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After project construction, California would be denied the production of birds from the project site in every subsequent year. The impacts of the project to birds would be permanent and of large magnitude (see my prediction above, under Habitat Loss).

Finally, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine and adjust the buffer area for any given species.

This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable. 932
34 RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Protocol-level Detection Surveys in Support of Mitigation: If the project goes forward, detection surveys need to be completed for burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, peregrine falcon, and other special-status species. Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for multiple special-status species.

Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts.

Pest Control: The project should commit to minimal use of rodenticides and avicides.

It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside the buildings.

Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021). 933
35 Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities, including at residential dwelling units.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by bird-window collisions and 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).

House Cats: If the Specific Plan goes forward, homeowners should not be allowed to let their cats range free. A fund should be established for long-term management of house cats in the project. Management could include public education about the environmental effects of outdoor and free-ranging cats. It could also include a program to spade and neuter cats, especially free-ranging cats. It could also involve some removals of feral cats.

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 windows and automobiles, and by attacks by house cats.

Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e. chaparral, grassland, and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used in residential yards, street-ways, and parks, as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration (e.g. El Segundo blue butterfly, monarch butterfly). Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 934
36 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your attention,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI

10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.

Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
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.

Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE00557-080203 Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 935
37 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.

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.

Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Dauphiné, N. and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.

W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.

C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.

Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

ESA. 2024. Lockwood III Apartments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Prepared for City of Oxnard Community Development Department. 936
38 Ferreira, A., A. M. Alho, D. Otero, L. Gomes, R. Nijsse, P. A. M. Overgaauw, and L.

Madeira de Carvalho. 2017. Urban dog parks as sources of canine parasites:
contamination rates and pet owner Behaviours in Lisbon, Portugal. Hindawi Journal of Environmental and Public Health Volume 2017, Article ID 5984086, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5984086
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.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Hennings, L. 2016. Impacts of dogs on wildlife and water quality. Metro Parks Nature Technical Report DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1107.5445.

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
937
39 Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.

Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:

10.1038/ncomms2380
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
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.

Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.

Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
938
40 Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.

Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.

Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.

Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.

Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions.

Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304- w
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).

Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. 939
41 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 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L.

Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

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, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676 940
42 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.

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.

Photo 40. Yellow-rumped warbler at the project site. Noriko Smallwood. 941
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
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 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 942
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 943
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. 944
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.
945
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. 946
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. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/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. 947
Smallwood CV 7
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 –

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. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the 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. 948
Smallwood CV 8
Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin:
37:787-795.

Smallwood, 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.

T
949
Smallwood CV 9
Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524.

Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531.

Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M.

Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation:

Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100.

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. 950
Smallwood CV 10
Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.

Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35.

Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435.

Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora.

Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.

Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates.

Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82.

Smallwood, 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.
951
Smallwood CV 11
Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289.

Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160.

Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335.

Smallwood, 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. 952
Smallwood CV 12
Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67.

Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests.

Biological Conservation 62:149-159.

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

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.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/range-management-practices-reduce-wind-turbine953 Smallwood CV 13
impacts-burrowing-owls-other-raptors
Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065 Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy 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 954
Smallwood CV 14
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.

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, 955
Smallwood CV 15
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 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 956
Smallwood CV 16
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 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 957
Smallwood CV 17
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.

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 958
Smallwood CV 18
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, 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.
959
Smallwood CV 19
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, 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. 960
Smallwood CV 20
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.

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. 2022. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with initial wind turbine layout of Viracocha Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind LLC and Salka LLC.

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 Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch 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 961
Smallwood CV 21
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, 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 962
Smallwood CV 22
burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore.

Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2013 Final Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2013). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one.

Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011.

Report to Pattern Energy.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch.
963
Smallwood CV 23
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, 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. 964
Smallwood CV 24
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) 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) 965
Smallwood CV 25
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 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 966
Smallwood CV 26
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, 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 967
Smallwood CV 27
(Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures.

Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the JeffersonMartin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp.

Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.

Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map.

Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures.

Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp.

Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model.

Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp.

Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4
th 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 968
Smallwood CV 28
education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.

Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 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 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.
969
Smallwood CV 29
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, 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 970
Smallwood CV 30
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:
 Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Application, Visalia (2022; 22);  Duarte Industrial Application, Visalia (2022; 17);
 Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse IS/MND, Madera (2022; 23);  Replies on Schulte Logistics Centre EIR, Tracy (2022; 28);  Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Recirculated IS/MND, Ranch Cucamonga (2022; 8);  Fourth visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2022; 9);  Replies on 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project FEIR, Santa Monica (2022; 5);  656 South San Vicente Medical Office Project EIR, Los Angeles (2022; 21);  UCSF New Hospital at Parnassus Heights DEIR. San Francisco (2022; 40);  DPR-21-021Warehouse IS, Modesto (2022; 19);
 Ormat Brawley Solar Project DEIR, Brawley (2022; 37);  Site visits to Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2022; 31);  Heritage Industrial Center Design Review, Chula Vista (2022; 13);  Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage DEIR, Port of Hueneme (2022; 29);  CNU Medical Center and Innovation Park DEIR, Natomas (2022; 35);  Beverly Boulevard Warehouse IS/MND, Pico Rivera (2021; 28);  Hagemon Properties IS/MND Amendment, Bakersfield (2022; 23);  Airport Distribution Center IS/MND, Redding (2021; 22);  Orchard on Nevada Warehouse Staff Report, Redlands (2021; 24);  Landings Logistics Center Exemption, Bakersfield (2021; 19);  Replies on Hearn Veterans Village IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 22);  North Central Valley BESS Project IS/MND, Stockton (2021; 37);  2
nd Replies on Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2022; 21);  Stagecoach Solar DEIR, Barstow (2021; 24);
 Updated Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2021; 35);
 Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project EIR, San Jose (2021; 43);
 Operon HKI Warehouse IS/MND, Perris (2021; 26);
 Fairway Business Park Phase III IS/MND, Lake Elsinore (2021; 23);  South Stockton Commerce Center IS/MND, Stockton (2021; 31);  Starpoint Warehouse IS/MND, San Bernardino (2021; 24);  Replies on Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2021; 15);  Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2021; 11); 971
Smallwood CV 31
 Alviso Hotel Project IS/MND, San Jose (2021; 43);
 Replies on Easton Research Park West IS/MND, Rancho Cordova (2021; 3);  Easton Research Park West IS/MND, Rancho Cordova (2021; 31);  US Cold Storage DEIR, Hesperia (2021; 30);
 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project FEIR, Santa Monica (2021; 23);  Third visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 10);  Roseland Creek Community Park Project IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 23);  Vista Mar Declaration of Irreparable Harm, Pacifica (2021; 3);  LogistiCenter at Fairfield IS/MND (2021; 25);
 Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project IS/MND, Ranch Cucamonga (2021; 29);  Caligrows Architectural and Site Plan Review, Patterson (2021; 21);  1055 E. Sandhill Avenue Warehouse IS/MND, Carson (2021; 10);  Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project IS/MND, Gilroy (2021; 27);  Libitzky Management Warehouse IS/MND, Modesto (2021; 20);  3rd Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2021; 10);  Medical Office Building DEIR, Santa Cruz (2021; 30);
 Scannell Warehouse DEIR, Richmond (2021; 24);
 Diamond Heights Application, San Francisco (2021; 24);  Costa Azul Mixed-Use EIR Addendum, San Diego (2021; 25);  Woodland Research Park DEIR (2021; 45);
 2
nd Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 9);  Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 3);  Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 28);  DHS 109 Industrial Park IS/MND, Desert Hot Springs (2021; 33);  Jersey Industrial Complex Rancho Cucamonga (2022; 22);  1188 Champions Drive Parking Garage Staff Report, San Jose (2021; 5);  San Pedro Mountain, Pacifica (2021; 22);
 Pixior Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2021; 29);
 2nd Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2021; 9);  Hearn Veterans Village IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 23);  Second visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 11);  Replies on Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2021; 26);  Schulte Logistics Centre EIR, Tracy (2021; 30);
 4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development EIR, Hayward (2021; 13);  Airport Business Centre IS/MND, Manteca (2021; 27);
 Dual-branded Hotel IS/MND, Santa Clara (2021; 26);
 Legacy Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Beaumont (2021; 47);  UC Berkeley LRDP and Housing Projects #1 and #2 EIR (2021; 27);  Santa Maria Airport Business Park EIR, Santa Maria (2021; 27);  Replies on Coachella Valley Arena EIR Addendum, Thousand Palms (2021; 20);  Coachella Valley Arena EIR Addendum, Thousand Palms (2021; 35);  Inland Harbor Warehouse NOD, Ontario (2021; 8);
 Alvarado Specific Plan DEIR, La Mesa (2021; 35);
 Harvill Avenue and Rider Street Terminal Project MND, Riverside (2021; 23); 972
Smallwood CV 32
 Gillespie Field EIR Addendum, El Cajon (2021; 28);
 Heritage Wind Energy Project section 94-c siting process, New York (2021: 99);  Commercial Street Hotels project Site Plans, Oakland (2021; 19);  Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project MND, El Centro (2021; 11);  Citrus-Slover Warehouse Project MND, Fontana (2021; 20);  Scott Ranch Project RDEIR (Davidon Homes), Petaluma (2021; 31);  Replies on StratosFuel Renewable H2 Project MND, Victorville (2021; 5);  StratosFuel Renewable H2 Project MND, Victorville (2021; 25);  Replies on PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2021; 22);  Baldwin-Zacharias Master Plans EIR, Patterson (2021; 38);  1000 Gibraltar Drive EIR, Milpitas (2021; 20);
 Mango Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project, Fontana, MND (2021; 20);  Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 25);  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);  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);  2
nd 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); 973
Smallwood CV 33
 2
nd 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, Rialto (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);  2
nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34);  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);
 2
nd 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);
974
Smallwood CV 34
 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);  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); 975
Smallwood CV 35
 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);
 2
nd 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);  2
nd
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);
 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); 976
Smallwood CV 36
 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);  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); 977
Smallwood CV 37
 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);  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);  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);
978
Smallwood CV 38
 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 IS/MND 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);  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);
979
Smallwood CV 39
 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);  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);
980
Smallwood CV 40
 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);  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);
981
Smallwood CV 41
 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. 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, 982
Smallwood CV 42
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
Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in the Altamont. Golden Gate Audubon, 21 October 2020.

Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in the Altamont. East Bay Regional Park District 2020 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 18 November 2020.

Smallwood, K.S., D.A. Bell, and S, Standish. Dogs detect larger wind energy effects on bats and birds. The Wildlife Society, 28 September 2020.

Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society, 28 September 2020.

Smallwood, K.S., D.A. Bell, and S, Standish. Dogs detect larger wind energy effects on bats and birds. The Wildlife Survey, 7 February 2020.

Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Survey, 7 February 2020.

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- 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. 983
Smallwood CV 43
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 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. 984
Smallwood CV 44
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.

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. 985
Smallwood CV 45
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.

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.
986
Smallwood CV 46
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.

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 987
Smallwood CV 47
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; 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, 988
Smallwood CV 48
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, 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 989
Smallwood CV 49
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.

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 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. 990
Smallwood CV 50
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 991
Exhibit B
992

IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: April 2, 2024
To: Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA. (IEE File Reference: P-4789)
Pages: 18
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products 993
2 of 18
used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3 , which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2
µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD, 2021).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. 994
3 of 18
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).
995
4 of 18
With respect to the Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA, the buildings consist of residential spaces.

The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.

Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.
996
5 of 18
Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific 997
6 of 18
material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for 998
7 of 18
Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.
999
8 of 18
Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. (Equation 1) where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per 1000
9 of 18
million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very 1001
10 of 18
important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Lakewood Street, East Gonzalez Road, Ventura Freeway -101, etc.) and thus the Project site is a sound impacted site.

According to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA (ESA, 2024), Appendix I, Table 10, the ambient noise levels with the Project range from 66.1 to 71.2 dBA CNEL.

However, these ambient noise levels were only measured during a single 24-hour period (August 1-2, 2022). In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a one-week period. and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior 1002
11 of 18
environment with closed windows and doors will also be requires. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA (ESA, 2024), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3 , or the National 24-hour average exceedence
concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:
1003
12 of 18
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced 1004
13 of 18
outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
1005
14 of 18
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2018011001.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

ESA. 2024. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration- Lockwood III Apartments Project, Oxnard, CA.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. 1006
15 of 18
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook 1007
16 of 18
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
1008
17 of 18

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 1009
18 of 18
2017, California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, 1010
19 of 18
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 1011
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH
Indoor Environmental Engineering
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: 415-567-7700
Email: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Education
M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985)
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA.

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y.

Professional Experience
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present.

Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing.

Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment.

Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building.

Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index.

Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment.

Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California.

Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers.
1012
2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987.

Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations.

Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984.

Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control).

Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting.

Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR).

Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny.

Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations.

Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment.

Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980.

Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers.

Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979.
1013
3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director.

Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977.

Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97)
- Member of Drafting Committee
• Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee
- Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee
- Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee
• Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000)
- Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
• Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
• D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres
- Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee
• E-06 Performance of Building Constructions
American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH)
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013)
1014
4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee
International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene
U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
- Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON)

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists

SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA
Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990.

Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993.

Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997.

Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998.

Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999.

Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. 1015
5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003.

Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008.

Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002.

Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.

Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016.

SPECIAL CONSULTATION
Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1.

Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters.

Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive.

Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993.

Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death.

Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke.
1016
6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation.

Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997.

Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA.

Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House.

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004.

Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from ecigarettes.

PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS :

F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982.

W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985.
1017
7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986.

W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987).

F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989.

F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989.

R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990.

S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991.

F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991.

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991).

F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992).

F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992.

F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992.

S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L.

Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. 1018
8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K.

Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994.

L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996.

F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001.

F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002.

M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M.

Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints 1019
9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005.

F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009.

F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010.

F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011.

W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012.

R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012.

W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S.

Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.

F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.

F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016.
1020
10 OTHER REPORTS:

W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981.

F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982.

F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983.

W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983.

R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983.

F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984.

W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984.
1021
11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984.

A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984.

R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984.

K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a SemiConductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986.

F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989.

F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990.
1022
12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990.

A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990.

F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993.

F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997.

S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998.

F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue.

F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.

F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008.

L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010.

F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014.

PRESENTATIONS :
"Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981. 1023
13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984.
"Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986.
"Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987.
"Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987.
"Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988.
"Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988.
"A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989. 1024
14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989.
"Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989.
"How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992.
"Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990.
"Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990.

"Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990.
"Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990.
"Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991.
"Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 1025
15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991.
"Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991.
"Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992.
"Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992.
"International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993.
"Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995.
“Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994.
1026
16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994.
”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998.

ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995.
“New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995.
"Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995.
“Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995.
“Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995.
“IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996.
“Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996.
1027
17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996.
“Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA.
“IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996.
“Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997.
“How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997.
“Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997.
“Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997.
“Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997.
“Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998.
“The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998.
“Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998.
“Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998.
“Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998. 1028
18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998.
“Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999.
“Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001.
“Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000.
“Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000.
“Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000.
“Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001.
“Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002.
“Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002.
“Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003. 1029
19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003.

Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005.
“Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003.
“Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004.
“Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005.
“Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007.
“Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008.
“Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008.
“Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008.
“Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008.
“Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. 1030
20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009.
“New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010.
“Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010.
“Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010.
“Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010.
“IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011.
“What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011.
“Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011.
“Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011.
“Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014.
“Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015.
“Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014.
“Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015.
1031
21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015.
“Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015.
“Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015.
“Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016.
“Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016.
1032
Exhibit C
1033
WI #24-002.07
April 8th, 2023
Ms. Marjan Kris Abubo
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
SUBJECT: Lockwood III Apartments
Oxnard, California
Review and Comment on Noise Study
Dear Mr. Abubo,
Per your request, Wilson Ihrig has reviewed the information and noise impact analysis in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Lockwood III apartments, with an emphasis on the Appendix I, the Noise Study, developed by Meridian Consultants and dated September 2023. The Proposed Project is construction of a 5-story approximately 234-unit multifamily residential building on undeveloped land in the City of Oxnard. The projected is surrounded by sensitive uses, including the California Lutheran University Satellite Campus at 2201 Outlet Center Drive, as well as medical office buildings at 1900, 1901, and 2024 Outlet Center Drive Wilson Ihrig, Acoustical Consultants, has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics since 1966.

During our 57 years of operation, we have prepared hundreds of noise studies for Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. We have one of the largest technical laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry. We also utilize industry-standard acoustical programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), SoundPLAN, and CADNA. In short, we are well qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

Adverse Effects of Noise1
Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf) 1034

WILSON IHRIG
Lockwood III Apartments
Comment on Noise Analysis