City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority / Public Financing Authority
December 10, 2024

Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank. Page 1 of 6
AGEND
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2024 – 6:00 P.M.
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW.RIVERBANK.ORG/AGENDACENTER)

MEETING LOCATION
Community Center
3600 Santa Fe Street

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. FLAG SALUTE

3. INVOCATION

4. ROLL CALL

5. AGENDA CHANGES

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

7. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
Item 7.1 Oath of Office to Newly Appointed Councilmember District 3- It is recommended the City Clerk administer the Oath of Office and present the Certificate of Appointment to newly appointed Councilmember District 3 John C. Pimentel.

8. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 8.1 Waive Readings. All Readings of ordinances and resolutions, except by title, are waived.

Item 8.2 Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 12, 2024 and the Special Meeting of November 18, 2024.

CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and
Local Redevelopment Authority
Board Meetings
Community Center
3600 Santa Fe Street
Riverbank, CA 95367

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
Mayor/Chair
Richard D. O’Brien
Council/Authority Members
Vice Mayor District 1 - Luis Uribe
District 2 - Rachel Hernandez
District 3 – John Pimentel
District 4 - Darlene Barber-Martinez
City Council and LRA Board Meetings Agenda December 10, 2024 Next City Council Resolution: 2024-108 Next Ordinance: 2024-006 Next Local Redevelopment Authority Board Resolution 2024-003 Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank. Page 2 of 6
Item 8.3 Resolution Reciting the Fact of the Consolidated Riverbank General Municipal Election held on November 5, 2024, and Declaring the Results and Such Other Matters as Provided by Law.– It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Riverbank (“City Council”) consider and adopt the Resolution for the purpose of reciting the fact of the General Municipal Election held on November 5, 2024 (“Election”) and of declaring the results as follows: 1) Declaring elected Cynthia L. Fosi, as the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast for the office of Councilmember District 2; and 2) Declaring elected Stacy Call, as the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast for the office of Councilmember District 4; and 3) Declaring elected Rachel Hernandez, as the person for whom the highest number of votes were cast for the office of Mayor.

9. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
Item 9.1 Recognition of Councilmember District 4 Darlene Barber-Martinez-It is recommended that the Riverbank City Council recognize Councilmember Darlene Barber-Martinez for her dedication and years of public service to the City of Riverbank.

Item 9.2 Recognition of Mayor Richard D. O’Brien- It is recommended that the Riverbank City Council recognize Mayor Richard D. O’Brien for his dedication and years of public service to the City of Riverbank

10. SPECIAL BUSINESS
Item 10.1 Administration of the Oath of Office, Presentation of Certificates of Election to each Elected Officer and Reorganization of the City Council- It is recommended the City Clerk/Elections Official do the honors of administering the Oath of Office to:
1) Councilmember, District 2 Cynthia L. Fosi
2) Councilmember, District 4 Stacy Call
3) Mayor, Rachel Hernandez
BRIEF RECESS Vice Mayor /Vice Chair to call for a brief recess for refreshments and reorganization of the City Council.

11. NEW CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL:

Councilmember District 2 Cindy Fosi
Councilmember District 3 John Pimentel
Councilmember District 4 Stacy Call
Vice Mayor, (CM-D1) Luis Uribe
Mayor, Rachel Hernandez
City Council and LRA Board Meetings Agenda December 10, 2024 Next City Council Resolution: 2024-108 Next Ordinance: 2024-006 Next Local Redevelopment Authority Board Resolution 2024-003 Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank. Page 3 of 6

12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

13. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State Law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Zoom Comments NOT AVAILABLE
IN PERSON Comments- Please fill out a Comment Card & Return to the City Clerk

14. PRESENTATIONS (Informational Only)

14. 1 Astro Foundation – Rescuing Animals- Supporting the Community- It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from Jaydeen Vincente, founder of ASTRO Foundation regarding the care and support they provide to the homeless animals in the Oakdale and Riverbank area.

15. CONSENT CALENDAR
Item 15.1 Approval of interim appointment for Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Policy Board Representative.

Item 15.2 Resolution Authorizing the Amendment of the City of Riverbank Compensation Plan to Reflect the New Salary Range for the Parks and Facility Maintenance Supervisor Position from Range 123 to Range 132.

Item 15.3 Resolution Approving the Neighborhood Improvement/Water Conservation Officer I-II Part-Time Job Classification; and Amending the City of Riverbank Compensation Plan for Part-Time/Temporary/Seasonal Positions to Reflect the Position Title of Neighborhood Improvement/Water Conservation Officer I-II.

16. PUBLIC HEARING
Public Notice for items 16.1 & 16.2 were published on 11/27/2024 in the Riverbank Newspaper.

Item 16.1 Resolution Accepting the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Annual AB 1600 Report of System Development Fee Activity- It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution accepting the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Annual AB 1600 Report of System Development Fee Activity.

Item 16.2 Resolution Ratifying the Adoption of Development Impact Fees Established by Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District – Continuation of Public Hearing to a Date Certain of January 28, 2025- It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, take public comment, and entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain of January 28, 2025.

City Council and LRA Board Meetings Agenda December 10, 2024 Next City Council Resolution: 2024-108 Next Ordinance: 2024-006 Next Local Redevelopment Authority Board Resolution 2024-003 Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank. Page 4 of 6

17. NEW BUSINESS

17.1 Resolution to Award a Contract for Banking and Merchant Services and Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Contract with JPMorgan Chase- It is recommended that the City Council authorize the award of a contract for banking and merchant services to JPMorgan Chase.

18. COMMENTS/REPORTS
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made.

The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Item 18.1 Staff
Item 18.2 Council/Authority Member
Item 18.3 Mayor/Chair

19. CLOSED SESSION-No Items Scheduled.

The public will have a limit of 3 minutes to comment on Closed Session item(s) as set forth on the agenda prior to the City Council/LRA Board recessing to Closed Session

20. ADJOURNMENT
The Next Regular City Council Meeting will be on: Tuesday, January 14,2025

ADA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, the City will make every effort to make reasonable modifications or accommodations from individuals with disabilities. Contact the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122 or the City Clerk at [email protected] at least (48) hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility.

NOTICE REGARDING NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
Pursuant to California Constitution Article III, Section IV, establishing English as the official language for the State of California, and in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedures Section 185, which requires proceedings before any State Court to be in English, notice is hereby given that all proceedings before the City of Riverbank City Council/LRA Board shall be in English and anyone wishing to address the Council is required to have a translator present who will take an oath to make an accurate translation from any language not English into the English language.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted at the meeting location, on the North City Hall public exterior bulletin board, South City Hall public exterior Bulletin, Riverbank Community Center exterior bulletin, and the City’s website 72 hours prior to the meeting in accordance to the California Ralph M. Brown Act.

Posted this 5
th Day of December 2024
/s/Gabriela Hernandez, CMC, City Clerk
City Council and LRA Board Meetings Agenda December 10, 2024 Next City Council Resolution: 2024-108 Next Ordinance: 2024-006 Next Local Redevelopment Authority Board Resolution 2024-003 Any documents that are not privileged or part of a Closed Session provided to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board after distribution of the agenda packet, regarding any item on this agenda, will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office 6707 Third St., Suite A, Riverbank. Page 5 of 6
How to Use Live Spanish Translation/ Como Usar Traduccion en Español En Vivo STEP 1/PASO 1 STEP 2/ PASO 2 STEP 3/ PASO 3

Scan QR Code Choose Spanish language Read Captions on Device Escanea el codigo Escoga el idioma Español Use headset for Audio Leea subtitulos en su aparato
Use auriculares para-audio
https://attend.wordly.ai/join/LHDA-5715

PUBLIC “LIVE” VIEWING
• Government Channels: Charter– 2 and AT&T U-VERSE – 99- (NOT AVAIALBLE AT THIS TIME) • YouTube Live – City of Riverbank
• Via ZOOM Platform (See instructions below)

SUBMITTING PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Written comments must be received before 5:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting in order for them to be distributed to the Council prior to consideration of the matter. Written comments will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be reported as received for the record. If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt within an hour of submission or by 5:00 pm, please call the City Clerk’s Office at (209) 863-7198 or the Administration Dept. at (209) 863-7122.

ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF SUBMITTING COMMENTS BEFORE THE 5:00 PM DEADLINE ● Via Mail Service: Mail comments to City of Riverbank, Attn. City Clerk, 6707 Third Street, Suite A, Riverbank, CA 95367. (Call 209-863-7198 / 209-863-7122 to ensure they were received.)
● Via Email: Mail to [email protected] (Note: This technology is not a guaranteed method.)
• Indicate Agenda Item # in the subject line. (Call 209-863-7198 /209-863-7122 to ensure receipt)
● Oral Comments In-Person: The Mayor will ask the public if anyone wishes to comment, at that time you may approach the podium.
● Oral Comments Via Zoom: Not Available

JOIN THE MEETING VIA ZOOM PLATFORM
Join by this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89940701207 Join by accessing website: https://zoom.us/join , enter Webinar ID: 899 4070 1207 Join by telephone:1 669 444 9171 OR 1 669 900 9128, plus Webinar ID: 899 4070 1207 Learn about using ZOOM - Visit https://zoom.us/j/94943925973?status=success for a free account or to download the app.

TELECONFERENCE/VIRUAL PLATFORM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

COMMENT PROCEDURES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN

CONFORMANCE WITH THE BROWN ACT

Item 7.1 – CC/LRA – 12/10/2024

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1
SECTION 7: PRESENTATIONS
Meeting Date: December 10, 2024
Subject: Administration of the Oath of Office to Newly Appointed Councilmember District 3
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, CMC, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Clerk administer the Oath of Office and present the Certificate of Appointment to newly appointed Councilmember District 3 John C. Pimentel.

SUMMARY
At a Special Meeting held on Monday, November 18, 2024, City Council voted to appoint Riverbank Resident John C. Pimentel to vacant City Council seat for District 3. In accordance with Gov. Code, § 36512 City Council had to fill the Vacancy by November 29, 2024. Councilmember Pimentel took his Oath of Office on November 19, 2024 administered in the office of the City Clerk and thus his appointment became effective that same day. Tonight’s proceeding of Councilmember Pimentel’s Oath of Office is for ceremonial purposes.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments to this report.

Item 8.1 – CC/LRA 12/10/2024

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.1
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 10, 2024
Subject: Waiver of Readings
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council / LRA Board approve the waiver of readings of any proposed ordinances and resolutions for consideration, except by title.

SUMMARY
In lieu of reading the entire text of a proposed ordinance or resolution that is introduced for consideration for adoption and approval, by majority vote, the City Council/LRA Board may waive the reading of the text and introduce the ordinance or resolution by title only for the record.

The full text of the proposed ordinances and resolutions, and any related documents that are part of the agenda packet, are available for review by the public on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall (North) upon distribution to a majority of the City Council/LRA Board; typically 72 hours prior to the scheduled date and time of the meeting.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS
There are no attachments to this report.

Item 8.2 – CC/LRA 12/10/2024

RIVERBANK CITY COUNCIL / LOCAL REDEVELPOMENT AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.2
SECTION 8: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: December 10, 2024
Subject: Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes for November 12, 2024 and the Special November 18, 2024 Meetings
From: Marisela H. Garcia, City Manager
Submitted by: Gabriela Hernandez, City Clerk/LRA Secretary

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/ Local Redevelopment Authority Board approve the City Council/LRA Meeting Minutes of November 12, 2024 and November 18, 2024 Special Meeting.

SUMMARY
The Draft Minutes of the City Council and the Local Redevelopment Authority Board meeting have been prepared for review and approval.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to this item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council/LRA Meeting Minutes for November 12, 2024.

2. Written Public Comment- Agenda Item 11.1 from Annabel Gammon

3. City Council Special Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2024.

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/12/2024

MINUTES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2024 – 6:00 P.M.
(THE AGENDA PACKET IS ONLINE AT HTTP://WWW.RIVERBANK.ORG/AGENDACENTER)

1. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor / Chair O’Brien called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.

2. FLAG SALUTE – Mayor O’Brien led the pledge of allegiance.

3. INVOCATION – Reverend Randy Richardson provided the invocation.

4. ROLL CALL – City Clerk Hernandez conducted Roll Call.

Members of the City Council / Local Redevelopment Authority Board present:

Council Member / Authority Member District 2 Rachel Hernandez Council Member/ Authority Member District 3-VACANT
Council Member / Authority Member District 4 Darlene Barber-Martinez Vice Mayor / Vice Chair District 1 Luis Uribe
Mayor / Chair Richard D. O’Brien

5. AGENDA CHANGES
None.

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Any Council/Authority Member or Staff who has a direct Conflict of Interest on any scheduled agenda item to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time.

Councilmember Barber-Martinez declared a conflict of interest with items 9.3 & 9.5.

7. PRESENTATIONS (Informational only)
Item 7.1 Proclamation- Native American Heritage Month- It is recommended that the City Council read a Proclamation declaring November as Native American Heritage Month and present to City of Riverbank Employee Gerrick Figueroa.

Mayor O’Brien read and presented the proclamation to City of Riverbank Employee Gerrick Figueroa in honor of Native American Heritage Month.

CITY COUNCIL / LRA BOARD
Mayor/Chair
Richard D. O’Brien
Council/Authority Members:

District 1 -Luis Uribe
District 2- Rachel Hernandez
District 3- Vacant
District 4 -Darlene Barber-Martinez

CITY OF RIVERBANK
Regular City Council and
Local Redevelopment Authority
Board Meetings
Council Chambers, 6707 Third St
Suite B
Riverbank, CA 95367
ATTACHMENT 1

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/12/2024
Item 7.2 Proclamation- Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day- It is recommended that the City Council read the Proclamation for Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day and present to Crossroads Elementary School Administration, PTA, and Students.

Mayor O’Brien read and presented the proclamation to Crossroads Elementary Staff, PTA, and students in honor of Ruby Bridges Walk to School Day.

8. PUBLIC COMMENTS (No action can be taken)
At this time, members of the public may comment on any item not appearing on the agenda, and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council/LRA Board. Individual comments will be limited to a maximum of 3 minutes (or as stated by the presiding Officer) and time cannot be yielded to another person. Under State Law, matters presented during the public comment period cannot be discussed or acted upon.

Mayor O’Brien Opened Public Comment at 6:16 P.M
Olivia Arambula, Chamber of Commerce to provide an update about upcoming events.

Lorrie Faile, Riverbank Small Business Owner to extend an invitation to the community for small business Saturday which she will host at her home.

Daryl Daniel, Riverbank Resident to express his concern regarding reckless drivers in his neighborhood. Opposed to the River Walk Project.

Olivia Arambula, Timeless Real Estate to extend an invitation to an open house that will be held at Timeless Real Estate.

Randy Richardson, Riverbank Resident to extend his appreciation to all Veterans.

There being no further public comments, Mayor O’Brien closed the Public Comment period 6:27 P.M.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items listed on the Consent Calendar are to be acted upon by a single action of the City Council/LRA Board unless requested by an individual Council/Authority Member or member of the public for special consideration. Otherwise, the recommendation of staff will be accepted and acted upon by motion of the City Council/LRA Board.

Item 9.1 Waive Readings. All Readings of ordinances and resolutions, except by title, are waived.

Item 9.2 Approval of the City Council and Local Redevelopment Authority Board Minutes for the October 22, 2024.

Item 9.3 Resolution to Waive the Community Center Rental Fee for Central Valley Community Resources, Inc. for Toys for Tots Event.

Item 9.4 Resolution 2024-103 to Waive the Community Center Rental Fee for the Riverbank Federated Women’s Club for a Fundraiser Event.

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/12/2024
Item 9.5 Resolution Authorizing an Application To and Participation In the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP).

Item 9.3 and Item 9.5 were pulled due to Councilmember Barber-Martinez having a Conflict of Interest.

There being no public comments, Mayor O’Brien brought the item back to City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Hernandez 4/0) to approve Consent Calendar Items 9.1, 9.2, and 9.4 as presented.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, and Mayor O’Brien NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None
Item 9.3 Resolution 2024-104 to Waive the Community Center Rental Fee for Central Valley Community Resources, Inc. for Toys for Tots Event.

Item 9.5 Resolution 2024-105 Authorizing an Application To and Participation In the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP).

There being no public comments, Mayor O’Brien brought the item back to City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Hernandez / Uribe 3/0) to approve Consent Calendar Items 9.3 and Item 9.5 as presented.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, and Mayor O’Brien
NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

10. PUBLIC HEARING-No Items Scheduled.

11. NEW BUSINESS
Item 11.1 Resolution to Authorize Staff to Submit the Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Mandated 90-day Compliance Evaluation with State Laws. - It is recommended that the City Council adopt a Resolution to authorize staff to submit the Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for the mandated 90-day compliance evaluation with State laws.

David Niskanen, Planner with JB Anderson Land Use Planning gave a comprehensive staff report and power point presentation on the Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element to be submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development.

City Council Discussed item with City Staff.

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/12/2024
Karen Conrotto, County Resident to express her concerns in regards to the Housing Element.

Daryl Daniel, Riverbank Resident to express his thoughts on the types of housing that can be offered in Riverbank.

Evelyn Halbert, Riverbank Resident to express her concerns in regards to the current Downtown Specific Plan and the City’s future housing plans.

Matt Beekman, Farmland Working Group to express concern on the Housing Element.

Solouri Meserve, Law Corp (Submitted Written Comment as Attached) There being no further public comment, Mayor O’Brien brought the item back to City Council.

ACTION: By motion moved and seconded (Uribe / Barber-Martinez 4/0) to approve Resolution 2024-106 the submission of the Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development for the Mandated 90-day Compliance Evaluation with State Laws.

Motion carried by unanimous City Council and LRA Board roll call vote:

AYES: Uribe, Hernandez, Barber-Martinez, and Mayor O’Brien NAYS: None / ABSENT: None / ABSTAINED: None

12. COMMENTS/REPORTS
A brief report on notable attendance of a meeting or conference or other notable topics of City business shall be made. The Brown Act does not allow for discussion or action of items by the City Council/LRA Board during this time.

Item 12.1 Staff
City Manager Garcia reported on the following:
• Join us for a special city Council meeting on Monday, November 18th when City Council will be interviewing candidates for the District 3 vacancy. The City has received a total of seven applications for consideration. • The deadline to apply for the Downtown Façade Improvement Program is Monday, November 25th at 5:00 pm. Information and application are available on our website.
• All city offices will be closed November 28th and 29th for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday.
• Register for Notify Me on our website to receive updates on upcoming city Council meetings, special events and road closures.

Item 12.2 Council/Authority Member
Councilmember Hernandez reported on the following:

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/12/2024
• Thank you to Parks and Recreation for the continued events that have been improving every time.

Councilmember Barber-Martinez reported on the following:
• I think we all can agree that the Housing Element is something that is difficult, something that we need to pay close attention to and do our best to try to understand it and our staff is always available. If anybody has any questions, whether you're a council member or resident, but they're always available. So, I appreciate trying to help us get through that process.
• I also want to personally thank all of our Veterans, their families and those who are currently serving in the military for our freedom.
• Registrations are now being accepted for our Toys for Tots giveaway on December 21st until November 22nd. You have to call Casa del Rio to sign up, and it's any resident that is in Riverbank is eligible to sign up.
• We're also going to have a toy drive and car show on December 1 st, and that will
be with our Toys for Tots and the Marines. And again, that is for all of our Riverbank residents. And it's going to be at SaveMart Crossroads from 9am to 2pm. I don't know if you're familiar with the big red cart, but we're going to try to fill it up. It's huge, it makes a lot of noise, but we're going to try our best to fill it up on that day. • We are going to have breakfast with Santa that will be on December 21st in the morning. And that we're doing in collaboration with the City of Riverbank, Casa del Rio and Central Valley Community Resources. It will be at the Community Center.

You do need to sign up through Casa del Rio, and we do need volunteers, so we're asking for anybody that wants to help out with breakfast with Santa. If you're available, please contact Central Valley Community Resources at (209) 896-3055. • Remember to support small businesses on the Saturday after the black Friday weekend. And last but not least, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Vice Mayor Uribe reported on the following:
• I don't have any of the fun announcements as Darlene did. So, let's talk about State Law, but just very briefly. So, Senate Bill 1215 it's looking to enhance electronic recycling waste kind of historically in the United States, we've been sending large amounts of waste to countries like Malaysia. Come January all that's going to come to a stop. We do fortunately have a business coming into Riverbank. It's 3R Technology. Their equipment's in route had a tour with the incoming Councilmember Cindy Fosi this morning they're shooting for a ribbon cutting in March. So very excited to see that. I will keep you guys posted on that. • The Sister City committee will be meeting this Friday at Pizza Plus at 6:00pm. We are going to be focusing on we are really close to our goal of sending the youth to the Youth Summit in DC in 2025. We have a deadline of March. We're right there.

So, we're going to have a discussion everyone's feel free to come by, join us, have a discussion with us. It is open to the public. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody.

Item 12.3 Mayor/Chair
Mayor O’Brien reported on the following:

CC / LRA Minutes – 11/12/2024
• You know, we don't take our responsibilities lightly. We look at the totality of the City. We have capacities that we have to consider. We have a lot of other issues that we have to consider. The Housing Element is just one. We also need a new General Plan, which we've been advocating now for some time until we can afford it and all of that will go together. A lot of the people that have issued comments, either for or against some of the proposals, are the ones that were actually built this General Plan, and I want everyone to understand the General Plan is the City saying, we want you to come here and develop this is our RFP. And if we say we're going to turn our back on it, what are we saying to businesses coming here? I'm sorry, we're not going to entertain it because it doesn't fit us today. But that General Plan is an RFP for property owners and for developers and for all of that to work together, they have to consider all the other necessary the capacity of roads, the capacity of a sewer, capacity for water, everything else that goes along with that.

So, we take our responsibilities very seriously. We just don't throw ideas out or discard them. We are committed to what we say we are going to do. With that. I want to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving and to all the other Veterans, thank you for your service. For me, it was my honor to serve this great country. Thank you.

13. CLOSED SESSION
The public will have a limit of 3 minutes to comment on Closed Session item(s) as set forth on the agenda prior to the City Council/LRA Board recessing to Closed Session.

No Items Scheduled.

14. ADJOURNMENT OF THE REGULAR MEETING
There being no further business, Mayor / Chair O’Brien adjourned the regular meeting at 7:18 P.M.to the next regular scheduled City Council / LRA Meeting of December 10, 2024 at 6:00 P.M.

ATTEST: (Adopted 12/10/2024) APPROVED:

Gabriela Hernandez, CMC Richard D. O’Brien
City Clerk / LRA Recorder Mayor/ Chair
November 12, 2024

SENT VIA EMAIL
([email protected])
City Council
City of Riverbank
6707 Third Street, Suite A
Riverbank, California 95367
Re: Agenda Item No. 11.1 (November 12, 2024 City Council Meeting) Submission of Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element to
Department of Housing and Community Development
Dear Mayor Richard D. O’Brien and Members of the City Council:

This firm represents Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon. The City’s October 2024 Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element fails to disclose the significant environmental, public services and infrastructure, Willamson Act, and other constraints associated with development of the River Walk Specific Plan. (Draft Housing Element, pp. VI-12-VI-14.) It should not be assumed that significant siting and other constraints can be overcome for this 1,522-acre site, about two-thirds of which is outside City limits. Attached are detailed comments and an expert report on ecology and wildlife submitted in May 2024 that explain some of the inadequacies of the January 2024 River Walk Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”). These and other comments received on the Draft EIR,1indicate that the River Walk Specific Plan should not be considered “suitable for residential development” by the City. (See, e.g., Gov. Gode, §§ 65883, 65583.2.)
We request that the River Walk Specific Plan should be removed from the City’s Housing Element prior to submission to the Department of Housing and Community Development.
1 There has been no indication of when or if the City’s planning and environmental review process for the River Walk Specific Plan will continue beyond the Draft EIR stage. (See https://www.riverbank.org/609/River-Walk-Project.) ATTACHMENT 2
City Council, City of Riverbank
November 12, 2024

Very truly yours,

SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation
By:

Osha R. Meserve
Attachment: May 16, 2024, Comments on the River Walk Specific Plan and DEIR Sent via email to City Council Members:

Richard D. O’Brien, Mayor, [email protected]
Leanne Jones Cruz, Vice Mayor, District 3, [email protected] Luis Uribe, Councilmember, District 1, [email protected] Rachel Hernandez, Councilmember, District 2, [email protected] Darlene Barber-Martinez, Councilmember, District 4, [email protected] cc: City of Riverbank, Housing Element
[email protected]
Department of Housing and Community Development
[email protected], [email protected]
Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon
[email protected]

ATTACHMENT
to Comments submitted on November 12, 2024
Regarding Agenda Item No. 11.1
May 16, 2024

SENT VIA EMAIL
([email protected])
Miguel Galvez, Contract City Planner
City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street, Suite A
Riverbank, California 95367
Re: Comments on River Walk Specific Plan and
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Galvez:

These comments, submitted on behalf of Riverbank residents Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon, pertain to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) and the River Walk Specific Plan (“RWSP” or “Project”) prepared by the City of Riverbank (“City”).
1 The Project includes the expansion of the City of Riverbank’s Sphere of Influence (“SOI”), among other approvals. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq. [“CEQA”]), the term “project” refers to the “whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq. [“CEQA Guidelines”], § 15378, subd. (a).) The Project objectives include expansion of the Riverbank SOI by approximately 1,522 acres, annexation of approximately 993 acres into the Riverbank City limits, extension of infrastructure to the annexed area to serve development, and the subsequent development of the annexed area for low-, medium- and high-density residential, mixed-use, and parks, including all infrastructure and utilities necessary to service the development. The Project area is located outside the northwestern boundary of the City SOI, within the unincorporated area of Stanislaus County.

The Project would involve large-scale changes to the environment and to the pattern of growth in the region. These comments focus on the failure of the DEIR’s to adequately analyze and disclose the Project’s impacts to biological resources, water 1 These comments pertain to both the RWSP, which is the Project, as well as to the DEIR. The Final EIR should list these comments as being from Annabel Gammon and Dr. J. Allen Gammon; the DEIR mistakenly lists their DEIR Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) comments as being submitted on behalf of Soluri Meserve, which is incorrect.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

supply and water quality, as well as significant land use changes. Our review of the DEIR and RWSP was informed by the review of the DEIR and site visits by Dr. Shawn Smallwood, an expert in ecology and wildlife biology, whose comments and qualifications are included as Attachment 1.
2 The DEIR fails to adequately analyze the environmental impacts associated with changes that would occur as a result of the Project, and for the reasons described herein, as well as other public comments, the DEIR cannot lawfully be certified and the RWSP should not be approved.

I. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION IS INADEQUATE
The overriding and primary goal of CEQA is the protection of the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000–21189.3; see §§ 21000–21002.) The purpose of an EIR is to provide the public with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project. (Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 21061, 21002.1, subd. (a).) An EIR should inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of decisions before they are made and should provide “the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action,” so that the public, “being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 [Laurel Heights II]; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 [Laurel Heights I].)
This means that an EIR must include analysis of “all phases of a project” and all “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of a project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126 [EIR’s impact analysis must consider all phases of a project]; Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d. at 396 [EIR must analyze “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of a project].) An EIR must also consider the cumulative impacts of past, present and probable future projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b); Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. City of Los Angeles (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1019, 1024–1025.)
The Project Description provided in the DEIR fails to provide consistent information necessary to understand the full extent of the Project, or its impacts on the environment. The DEIR claims to be a hybrid programmatic and project-level EIR, 2 Letter from Dr. Shawn Smallwood to Miguel Galvez, re: River Walk Specific Plan DEIR, dated April 17, 2024 (“Smallwood Report”). It is requested that the Smallwood Report be responded to separately in the Final EIR.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

described as both a “Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, but in some areas of the document it also serves as a Project-level EIR.” (DEIR, p. 1.0-1.) This leads to a confusing depiction of Project scope, making it nearly impossible for the public and decisionmakers to fully understand the Project’s impacts.

For example, some statements in the DEIR indicate that “[t]he proposed project includes the expansion of the City of Riverbank Sphere of Influence, and approval and subsequent implementation of the Specific Plan as a means of increasing the housing supply in Stanislaus County.” (DEIR, p. ES-2.) These explanations fail to provide the requisite clarity needed for the public and decisionmakers to evaluate the Project’s scope.

Examples of inconsistencies in the DEIR’s description of the Project include:
• Inconsistent statements defining the whole of the Project as the approval of the RWSP, while at other times appearing to define the Project as the combination of the adoption of the RWSP and the expansion of the SOI. This renders an assessment of the adequacy of sufficient water supplies impossible, because it is unclear whether these water supplies apply to meet the demands of only the RWSP or to the entire expansion of the SOI, including reasonably foreseeable future development that is not specifically contemplated in DEIR’s impacts analyses.
• Contradictory statements asserting that:
o “A component of the proposed Project that includes a Specific Plan includes a very high level of design detail for that portion of the proposed Project.” (DEIR, p. 1.0-2.)
And alternately:
o “The proposed Project (Project), also referred to as the River Walk Specific Plan (RWSP), is an approximately 993-acre development of residential, open space, park, and commercial land uses to the west of the City’s current City limits.” (RWSP Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”), p. 2.)
And:
o “The entire Project Vicinity includes approximately 1,522 acres within the unincorporated county adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Specific Plan Project area (i.e., the RWSP or Project) includes a 993-acre area proposed to be annexed and subsequently developed. The remaining land within the Project City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

Vicinity is part of the SOI Amendment and would be held as Reserve land for possible long-range planning at some future time.” (WSA, p. 4.) And:
o Discussions of the Project Area as “the proposed Project includes approximately 1,522 acres encompassing: (1) the Specific Plan Area that includes a total of 997 acres, including the Berghill Boundary, and (2) the SOI Expansion Boundary, which makes up the entire Project Area.” (DEIR, p. 2.0-

1.).

And:
o “The Environmental Impact Report is intended to be a project-level analysis of the Specific Plan area.” (NOP, p. 11.)
And:
o “The proposed Project would result in an expansion of an SOI boundary to areas not previously planned for development, as well as an extension of services for urban development in an area (the Specific Plan Area) that the City has envisioned for growth in their adopted General Plan. The areas outside the Specific Plan Area, but within the SOI boundary, would not be developed under the proposed Project, and would not have services provided to this area.

Any future development of the areas outside the Specific Plan Area, but within the SOI boundary, would require a Specific Plan to be prepared.” (DEIR, p.

3.10-17.)
These inconsistencies render the DEIR insufficient as an informational document meant to “enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and ‘meaningfully’ consider the issues raised by the proposed project.” (Santa Clarita Org. for Planning v. County of L.A. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 715, 721 [Santa Clarita].) An “EIR is intended to serve as an informative document to make government action transparent. Transparency is impossible without a clear and complete explanation of the circumstances surrounding the reliability of the water supply.” (Ibid., citing California Oak Foundation v. City of Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1238 [California Oak Foundation].) The standard requiring an informative discussion of project impacts “is not met in the absence of a forthright discussion of a significant factor that could affect water supplies.” (California Oak Foundation, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at 1237.) City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

Under CEQA, a project description must include all relevant parts of a project, including future expansion or later phases of the project that will foreseeably result from project approval. (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 396; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126 [EIR’s impact analysis must consider all phases of project].) The DEIR impermissibly omits analysis of development of the “Reserve” area from its discussions of impacts, claiming that it is not planned for development at this time. However, it is clear by the history of the City’s accelerated growth (the City last applied for an expansion of its SOI in 2016, and last annexed territory into its boundaries in 2019) that it plans to develop the land included in the SOI expansion proposed as part of the Project.

The DEIR must analyze the impacts of development of land within the Project area.

II. THE DEIR FAILS TO FULLY ANALYZE AND DISCLOSE THE
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT (DEIR CHAPTER 3.4)
It is the policy of the state, in accordance with CEQA, to “[p]revent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plan and animal communities . . . .” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (c).)
The CEQA Guidelines include a definition of “endangered, rare, or threatened species” that provides that a species is presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened when it is listed under California endangered species regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 670.2, 670.5) or under the federal endangered species regulations (50 C.F.R. §§

17.11–17.12; CEQA Guidelines, § 15380.) A species that is not listed must be considered endangered, rare, or threatened if the species meets specified criteria. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380, subd. (d).) A species is considered endangered if its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy as a result of loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380, subd. (b)(1).) A species that is not threatened with extinction is considered rare if it is existing in such small numbers in all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380, subd. (b) (2)(A).) A species is also considered rare if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered threatened within the meaning of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (“ESA”) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544). (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380, subd. (b)(2)(B).) Dr. Smallwood surveyed the Project site for a total of 7.75 hours over two visits in February and April 2024. He observed 53 species in February and 64 species in April, for a total of 75 different species of vertebrate wildlife, including 13 special-status species. (Smallwood Report, p. 7; Table 1, pp. 8-10.) Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

site supports a rich diversity of wildlife species far in excess of other project sites he has surveyed in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley region. The nature of the reconnaissance surveys he conducted, furthermore, though useful for “realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat.” (Id. at 31.) The site, therefore, likely supports a much broader diversity of species than he could even detect during his reconnaissance surveys.

To put his observations at the Project site in context, Dr. Smallwood compared a robust data set from an earlier, much larger survey, during which he performed 721 hours of surveys at 46 stations at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area from 2015 to 2019.

Using the numbers he observed at the Project site in a model developed for his time spent at Altamont Pass, he concluded that the species he observed during his surveys at Altamont Pass represented just 38.2 percent of the species he encountered during a comparable time period at the Project site. (Smallwood Report, p. 31.) On average, Dr.

Smallwood detected just 21.8 species over the first 7.75 hours of surveys at Altamont Pass (similar to the time he spent at the Project site), compared to the 75 species he saw at the Specific Plan Area. (Ibid.) Calculating this small sample of time to a larger survey window, Dr. Smallwood predicted that he would likely have detected 196 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site given the chance to conduct repeat surveys throughout the year. (Ibid.) Using the same method of calculation and a ratio of special-status to nonspecial-status species, Dr. Smallwood predicted he would have eventually detected 34 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife at the Project site. (Ibid.) To check the accuracy of these predictions, Dr. Smallwood performed a similar analytical bridge comparing the Specific Plan Area to a site along the American River in Rancho Cordova, which he had visited 41 times, and which featured a natural environment similar to that of the Project site, such as a walnut orchard adjacent to a riparian woodland. The model returned the same prediction: 196 species observed during surveys conducted over a year or more, including 34 special-status species. (Id. at 32.) This type of reconnaissance survey, however, has its limitations. These surveys, derived from a visual daytime scan, would not detect nocturnal birds and mammals such as owls and bats. The site, Dr. Smallwood noted, supports many species of wildlife, including many more than he could detect during his reconnaissance surveys. And this method of modeling and surveying, though useful for realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey. (Id. at 31.) Because Dr. Smallwood surveyed only in winter/spring, he was unlikely to see some of the species that would use the site in summer or fall. As Dr. Smallwood explained:

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. One or two reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but this level of effort certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site.
(Smallwood Report, p. 32.) Therefore, the Smallwood Report likely undercounts the number of species in the Project area.

A. The DEIR’s Assessment of the Existing Environmental Setting Is Inaccurate and Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
“An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant,” providing “the public and decision makers the most accurate and understandable picture practically possible of the project’s likely near-term and long-term impacts,” and allowing “for the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subds. (a), (c).) “Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c).) This statutory mandate to fully investigate and present an accurate representation of existing conditions in the vicinity of a proposed project is the first and necessary step to fulfilling CEQA’s “fundamental goal of [] inform[ing] decision makers and the public of any significant adverse effects a project is likely to have on the physical environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v.

City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 428 [Vineyard].) “To make such an assessment, an EIR must delineate environmental conditions prevailing absent the project, defining a baseline against which predicted effects can be described and quantified.” (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 447; Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 315.)
Provided an agency’s assessment and discussion of existing conditions are sufficiently robust and based on accurate information, the analyses of project impacts that follow will inevitably elicit more reliable conclusions. Conversely, in the event an EIR’s assessment of existing conditions in the project vicinity is incomplete, inadequate, or based on flawed reporting methods or misapplied factual data, the subsequent analyses will be unavoidably distorted, rendering any impacts determinations legally inadequate and “preclud[ing] a determination that substantial evidence supports [the agency’s City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

conclusions.]” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 729 [San Joaquin Raptor].) Indeed, this frustrates the very purpose of CEQA. Ample case law states that “[w]hen an EIR contains an inadequate description of the environmental setting for a project, ‘a proper analysis of project impacts [is] impossible.’” (Save North Petaluma River and Wetlands v. City of Petaluma (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 207, 217; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1122 [invalidating EIR containing only passing references to surrounding viticulture].)
To satisfy this crucial first step and lay the groundwork for an adequate impacts analysis of the Project, the DEIR must “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.” (Smallwood Report, p. 32.) Provided a reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting, the agency—and later, the public and decision makers evaluating the Project—will have a solid foundation “for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts.” (Ibid.) Dr. Smallwood noted that scientifically accepted methods of assessing the environmental setting 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.” (Id. at 33.) The DEIR, as discussed below, fails to complete these necessary steps. Instead, readers are presented with an inadequate and misleading picture of the existing environmental setting, and thus an unsupported impacts analysis based on a flawed foundation.

1. The DEIR fails to disclose details necessary to meaningfully evaluate its analysis of the existing environmental setting, leaving readers to rely on conclusory statements and questionable data The DEIR summarized the four reconnaissance surveys that were reportedly conducted by Steve McMurtry in 2019 and 2020, including the numerous and ambitious objectives and the questionable claims that (1) the surveys were “timed to detect breeding birds and amphibians, and active reptiles;” (2) a record was kept of all signs of wildlife including tracks; and (3) “CDFW’s (2018) plant survey guidelines were followed.” 3 3 Dr. Smallwood’s Report notes: “According to the DEIR (page 3.4-1), Steve McMurtry completed at least four reconnaissance-level surveys in December 2019 and in March, May and June 2020. In a reply communication to Osha Meserve, the City of Riverbank (Miguel Galvez email of 7 March 2024) reports that no technical report of the McMurtry’s surveys has been prepared. Were the DEIR to include all of the technical data and reporting needed to achieve the public disclosure objective of CEQA, then the City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

(Smallwood Report, p. 33.) To achieve all of the listed objectives, Dr. Smallwood asserted that “many hours of surveys over many days on the very large River Walk Specific Plan area, as well as the extended Sphere of Influence” would have been necessary. (Ibid.) The DEIR, however, “fails to report the dates McMurtry surveyed, at what times of day he began his surveys, and how long his surveys lasted. The reader of the DEIR is provided no information to ascertain whether or to what degree McMurtry could have achieved the stated objectives.” (Ibid.)
The DEIR does not report whether McMurtry surveyed reference sites for special-status species of plants, which is a key CDFW (2018) standard. Nor does the DEIR report key details needed to interpret the survey results, such as the survey start times and the survey durations. No explanation is reported of how McMurtry inspected or evaluated the site to document the site’s potential to support special-status species. Did the biologist carry a checklist of resources needed by each special-status species? The DEIR fails to summarize McMurtry’s qualifications for conducting the surveys for special- status species of plants and animals. In short, the DEIR neglects to report the most essential methodological details the reader needs to know in order to accurately interpret McMurtry’s survey findings. (Smallwood Report, p. 33.)
The Smallwood Report explains in detail the information missing from the DEIR, including any record or discussion of the detection probabilities associated with any of the special-status species that are typical of reconnaissance surveys. The DEIR only reports some of the species “commonly seen,” but fails to include a list of species that were detected. (Id. at 34.) No protocol-level detection surveys were completed for special-status species, even though, as Dr. Smallwood reported, “there was cause to expect the presence of special-status species including, but not limited to, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Swainson’s hawk, giant garter snake, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, western and Crotch’s bumble bees, monarch and other special-status species.” (Ibid.) Yet, the DEIR claims that the “Project Area provides habitat for both common and a few special-status wildlife populations.” (DEIR, p. 3.4-8; emphasis added.)
lack of a technical report from McMurtry would be of no consequence. However, the DEIR fails to disclose salient information, such as methodological details needed by the reader to determine whether McMurtry achieved the minimum plant survey standards of CDFW (2018), and such as the species of wildlife detected by McMurtry.” (Smallwood Report, p. 33.)
City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

The DEIR asserts that preconstruction take-avoidance surveys would be completed prior to construction of each village, after approval of the Project. As explained by Dr. Smallwood, “Preconstruction take-avoidance surveys do not provide anywhere close to the same detection probabilities as do detection surveys, because such surveys are initiated only if construction commences within specific times of the year (see the mitigation measures for timing details), they are constrained to narrow dateranges, and they are not performed to the same standards of effort.” (Smallwood Report, p. 35.)
The dearth of information needed to meaningfully review the DEIR’s assessment of the existing environmental setting is troubling. No context is provided that would allow the reader to interpret conclusions regarding detections or lack of detections of wildlife and plant species in the Project area. There is no discussion of the detection probabilities associated with any of the special-status species that are typical of reconnaissance surveys. (Smallwood Report, p. 34.) The DEIR fails to comply with CEQA’s public disclosure requirement, and the resulting impacts analyses derived from its flawed and incomplete baseline assessment are necessarily unsubstantiated.

2. The DEIR improperly uses information and misapplies data from wildlife databases, further obscuring its analysis of the Project’s environmental setting
An important step in a sufficient and competent analysis of a site’s breadth of species diversity, Dr. Smallwood noted, is thorough and proper review of appropriate databases and literature “to inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented.” (Smallwood Report, p. 35.) This information is necessary “to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other specialstatus species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and site conditions.” (Ibid.) Reconnaissance surveys, Dr. Smallwood explained, do not detect all of the species of wildlife that make use of the site. Performing a competent review of the appropriate databases and literature “can identify those species yet to be detected at the site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such determinations.” (Ibid., emphasis added)
The City’s review of databases and literature was fundamentally flawed. The City relied on data that was not only outdated, but also misapplied and used to form baseless conclusions that distort the Project’s true impacts. (Smallwood Report, pp. 35-37.) Supplemental information (an email), which was not available in the DEIR or City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

appendices, indicated that the City relied on a record search of two documents in its analysis of biological resources: (1) a two-page California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) database query dated January 5, 2022; and (2) the automated US Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) report: “List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project,” also dated January 5, 2022. (Smallwood Report, p. 35.) Dr. Smallwood explained:

These standard documents are designed to inform project applicants regarding potential species that may occupy the locale, and their status at the time of data request. These documents are not intended to be definitive species or habitat descriptors. Indeed, the FWS document states on page 2 that it suggests that a Biological Assessment or biological evaluation “be prepared to determine whether the project may effect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat.” No Biological Assessment or biological evaluation was provided.
(Ibid.)
The information provided in the CNDDB report, to start, is outdated. The report itself indicates that the data it contains expires July 1, 2022. The use of this expired—and therefore, inaccurate—information resulted in, as Dr. Smallwood pointed out, “a chain of defective analyses, starting with the misrepresentation of the legal status of 2 species of bumble bees on DEIR pages 3.4-34 and 35. The species’ status was in review in 2021 and updated by the State on September 30, 2022, long before the 2024 DEIR. The 2024 DEIR erroneously states that the bees ‘are not specifically protected under state or federal law.’ (DEIR, p. 3.4-35.) This is incorrect.” (Smallwood Report, pp. 35-36.)4 Almond Alliance of California v. Fish & Game Commission (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 337, 341, confirmed that these species may be listed under Fish and Game Code section 45, and gives the Fish and Game Commission the authority to list invertebrates as endangered or threatened species.

Furthermore, the DEIR fundamentally misuses the CNDDB database, applying the information it provides improperly to reach flawed conclusions that cannot be supported by substantial evidence. An initial lineup of special-status species to be considered in the DEIR’s analysis of species at the Project site was drawn from the database’s occurrence records—a use for which the CNDDB database is explicitly inappropriate. Dr.

Smallwood explained:
4 An updated record of listed species is found at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/News/updates-to-the-legal-status-of-bumble-beesin-california#gsc.tab=0.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

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.”
(Id. at p. 36; emphasis in original.)
The CNDDB database, which relies entirely on volunteer or permit reporting from biologists, includes only records of those surveys voluntarily reported, and only from properties to which access was granted. The database, therefore, represents only a fraction of the state’s wildlife population and diversity profile: many properties have never been surveyed, while others may have been surveyed but only partially reported, and still others surveyed but never reported at all. (Smallwood Report, p. 36.) More importantly, CNDDB’s records include sighted observations of currently listed specialstatus species only. Species that have more recently been assigned special status will have been reported far fewer times, or not at all, to CNDDB than those that have been listed for many years. (Ibid.) “The lack of CNDDB records for species only recently assigned special status would have been due to insufficient time having elapsed since the assignments. And because negative findings are not reported to CNDDB, CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either. The DEIR’s analysis of special-status species occurrence likelihoods is fundamentally flawed.” (Ibid.) Dr. Smallwood’s assessment, based on controlled, thorough, and well-documented site visits, along with properly conducted reviews of the relevant databases and literature, revealed that 101 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant further analysis for their potential to occur at the site. (Smallwood Report, Table 2, pp. 38-42.). Of these, 13 (13%) were confirmed on the site by his survey visits, and 27 (27%) have been documented in databases within 1.5 miles of the site (“very close”), 11 (11%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (“nearby”), and another 40 (40%) within 4 to 30 miles (“in region”). Half (51) of the special-status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. “On any given day, one or more yet-tobe documented special-status species likely make use of the project site,” Dr. Smallwood concluded, and the site likely supports many special-status species of wildlife, which would require multiple surveys to sufficiently detect. (Ibid.; see Tables 1 and 2, Smallwood Report, pp. 30, 32.) “Reconnaissance surveys are not designed to support absence determinations of any of these species. Therefore, sufficient survey effort should City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

be directed to the site to either confirm that the species in Table 2 use the site or to support absence determinations.” (Smallwood Report, p. 36.) In contrast to Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions following his on-site surveys and review of the relevant literature, the DEIR makes the unsupported claim that the “Project Area provides habitat for both common and a few special-status wildlife populations.” (DEIR, p. 3.4-8; emphasis added.) Of the 101 special-status species that Dr. Smallwood determined were likely to have some potential to occur at the site, the DEIR analyzed occurrence likelihoods of only 24. (Smallwood Report, p. 36.) Moreover, the conclusions reached in the DEIR, which are unsupported by substantial evidence, are often found to conflict with the data. For example, though it determined that four of the special-status species are absent, records showing at least one of these has been observed nearby. The DEIR concludes that six of the species may potentially occur, in contrast to the record which shows one is very close. Other conclusions are misleading or ambiguous, such as the determination that one species has “limited habitat,” which is not a characterization of habitat availability generally accepted by the scientific community, nor is it explained in the DEIR. (DEIR, p. 3.4-18; Smallwood Report, p. 36.) Regarding the omission of any analysis of other species observed at the site, Dr. Smallwood explained:

Of the 77 special-status species whose occurrence likelihoods are not analyzed in the DEIR, ten have been documented on the Specific Plan area, 23 have been documented within 1.5 miles, seven have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles, and 34 have been documented between 4 and 30 miles. The DEIR neglects to analyze the occurrence likelihoods of nine special-status species that actually occur, as well as 68 others that likely occur on the River Walk Specific Plan area. The DEIR is inadequate. (Smallwood Report, p. 37.)
B. The DEIR’s Flawed Analysis of Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources Results in Erroneous and Inaccurate Findings Courts have held that an EIR’s unsubstantiated conclusion that an impact is not significant, without supporting information or explanatory analysis, is insufficient; the reasoning supporting the determination of insignificance must be disclosed. (See City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 393; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1111; Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 432.) Though an agency is not required to perform a quantified analysis of biological impacts, the supporting biological studies or analyses on which the agency’s conclusions City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

are based must be “sufficiently credible” to support the EIR conclusions. (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1468.) The DEIR’s reliance on an incomplete and largely inaccurate assessment of the environmental setting—derived from unreported and unavailable survey results paired with a flawed review of misconstrued data—results in findings regarding the Project’s potentially significant impacts that are wholly unsupported and necessarily inaccurate.

The DEIR’s conclusory statements and unsubstantiated determinations are drawn from misapplication of facts and misinterpretation of how to appropriately use data, and as such cannot reasonably be considered “sufficiently credible.” Moreover, the DEIR’s discussion of impacts contains statements that are misleading or inaccurate, as well as conclusions that are misleading or misinterpreted.

For example, Dr. Smallwood pointed out, the DEIR (p. 3.4-35) makes the claim that the special-status species of bumble bees observed at the site “are not specifically protected under state or federal law.” (Smallwood Report, p. 37.) “To the contrary, Western bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble bee are candidate endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. Candidate species are protected to the same degree as species listed as threatened or endangered (see Fish & Game Code section 2052.1).” (Ibid.) Other misleading or inaccurate statements include:
• Attributing the decline of the Western bumble bee to a parasite and to honeybees.

Substantial evidence exists that habitat loss and pesticide use have contributed considerably to its decline. (Smallwood Report, p. 37.) If Western bumble bee occurs in the Specific Plan area, “habitat loss caused by the development of the River Walk Specific Plan could contribute substantially to the extirpation of Western bumble bee.” (Ibid.)
• Assertions that habitat for the three special-status species of bumble bee would be created by yards of new homes, parks, and along the river corridor. (DEIR, p. 3.4-

36.) “However, the river corridor would not create new habitat because the river corridor already exists.” There is no evidence that yards or parks have ever provided habitat to the three special-status species of bumble bee. (Smallwood Report, p. 37.)
• Use of unreliable and unsubstantiated data to support its conclusions, such as inaccurate nesting and migratory information regarding the protected Swainson’s hawk, including a map purporting to show potential nesting sites for the hawk that is incomplete and inaccurate, omitting significant portions of the area that are clearly appropriate nesting sites, such as stands of large oak trees. (Smallwood Report, p. 43.)
City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

• Claims that the levee shows no evidence of small mammal burrows and is thus less ideal for burrowing owl foraging. Dr. Smallwood’s observations during his site visits, in contrast, returned evidence of numerous small mammals on the levee: burrows of ground squirrels, Botta’s pocket gophers and California voles, including numerous vole runways through the grass on the levee. (Smallwood Report, p. 43.)
• Conclusory statements based on patently false data, including the spurious claim that although California ground squirrel burrows exist on the Specific Plan area, none of the burrows were large enough to support burrowing owls. Dr.

Smallwood, who during his nearly 40 years of conducting wildlife surveys all over the state has never encountered ground squirrel burrows too small to support burrowing owls, observed numerous ground squirrel burrows at the site, including one next to a poison bait dispenser, all large enough to support burrowing owls. (Smallwood Report, photo 41, p. 44.)
• Flawed conclusions drawn from misinterpreted information, such as the determination that the Project would only have an “indirect impact” on burrowing owls and other species, despite the substantial loss of habitat and habitat fragmentation that will result from the Project. Loss of habitat is a direct impact that is “directly translatable to loss of individuals, because the environment’s capacity to support those individuals is eliminated.” (Smallwood Report, p. 44.) The Project would unquestionably result in significant impacts to biological resources, many of which the DEIR fails to even mention, let alone discuss in detail. For example, the DEIR’s downplays considerably the Project’s adverse impacts to biological resources by offering only a limited discussion of its substantial contribution to habitat loss in the area. (Smallwood Report, pp. 44-45.) The DEIR neglects entirely to discuss Project impacts to wildlife resulting from habitat fragmentation and the ensuing loss of productive capacity. (Ibid.) “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). None of these impacts, however, are specifically addressed in the DEIR.” (Id. at p. 45.) Analyses of other impacts, such as impacts to wildlife movement, depredation by house cats, window and road collisions, are inadequately discussed or entirely omitted from the DEIR.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

1. The DEIR understates or wholly omits the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts in the region
An EIR must discuss a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effects are “cumulatively considerable” when viewed “in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15130, subd. (a), 15065, subd. (a)(3).) “[A] project-specific impact may be insignificant but its contribution to a cumulative impact may be cumulatively considerable.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 148.) A lead agency has “an obligation to consider the present project in the context of a realistic historical account of relevant prior activities that have had significant environmental impacts.” (Environmental Protection Information Center v.

California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 524.) An EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure, or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(3); emphasis added.) “A cumulative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker’s perspective concerning the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval.” (Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431.) Courts have found an EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts inadequate as a matter of law when they failed to include the requisite list of “past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects,” or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan for a summary of cumulative development as is required by section 15130 of the Guidelines. (San Joaquin Raptor, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at 740.) In San Joaquin Raptor, the court cited the EIR’s assertion that “nonspecific ‘cumulative development’ will change the character of the community, increase light and glare and lead to the loss of agricultural land.” (Ibid.) The determination that followed, which found “that although there has been a ‘vast reduction in wildlife habitat areas, particularly wetlands,’ due to ‘encroachment into natural areas . . . as a result of urban expansion,’ the ‘[c]umulative development of this and other projects within the Grayson Area will not contribute to that trend’” was “inexplicabl[e], [and] without any supporting facts or analysis.” (Ibid.)
City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

Similarly, the DEIR for the River Walk Specific Plan makes several contradictory assertions and conclusory statements unsupported by any facts or analysis. For example, the DEIR concedes that “[d]evelopment of the proposed Project would eliminate opportunities for movement habitat through the Specific Plan Area, along with any upland habitat adjacent to the movement corridors” and admits that the “proposed project would have cumulatively considerable impacts associated with biological resources.” (DEIR, p. 4.0–8.) However, the DEIR simultaneously insists, without any discussion or analysis, that the Project, “when considered alongside all past, present, and probable future projects (inclusive of buildout of the various General Plans within Stanislaus County), would not be expected to cause significant cumulative impacts” because “mitigation has been presented that would reduce any cumulative impact to a less than significant level.” (DEIR, p. 4.0–8.)
As required by section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that a project’s contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable such as a discussion of projections contained in an adopted general plan that summarize cumulative developments and their impacts. The only such discussion of cumulative impacts on biological resources in the DEIR is the statement that “[t]he local General Plan(s), in addition to regional, State, and federal regulations, includes policies and measures that mitigate impacts to biological resources associated with General Plan buildout.” (DEIR, pp. 4.0–7-8.) Moreover, the DEIR, asserting that “[a]ll biological resources impacts were determined to be less-than-significant or less-than-significant with mitigation” seems to equate the mitigation of project-level impacts with reduction of cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels. “Thus, the DEIR implies that cumulative effects are simply residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts, and that no residual impacts would remain. . . . Even if project-level mitigation is implemented, development projects cause cumulative impacts.” (Smallwood Report, p. 55.) Impacts may be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, but still cumulatively considerable when considered with other projects.

Dr. Smallwood notes that despite the “devastatingly large numbers of direct impacts to wildlife just at the River Walk Specific Plan alone,” which would unquestionably “add to the tolls at the other projects recently completed, underway or foreseeable,” the DEIR, without any supporting facts or analysis, falsely insists that “impacts related to biological resources would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution.” (DEIR, pp. 4.0–8-9.) “The DEIR does not provide a serious analysis. A fair argument can be made for the need to revise the DEIR to appropriately analyze potential cumulative impacts.” (Smallwood Report, p. 56.) City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

C. The DEIR Provides Inadequate Mitigation for Project Impacts to Biological Resources
An EIR shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts. Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1), (2).) “Formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time.” (Guidelines, § 15126.4, subd. (a)(1)(B).)
“Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity commits itself to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan. On the other hand, an agency goes too far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report.” (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 856 [King & Gardiner Farms]; Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275.) An EIR cannot avoid studying impacts to biological resources by proposing a plan to mitigate presumed impacts based on future studies unless the mitigation measures and mitigation performance standards are identified. (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v County of Merced (2007) 149 CA4th 645, 671 [San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center].) In San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at 668, the court found the EIR’s proposed mitigation of impacts to special-status species inadequate because the agency improperly deferred formulation of significant aspects of mitigation, and therefore failed to comply with CEQA’s informational requirements. The EIR in that case imposed a 300-foot buffer around areas where special-status species were presumed to occur, and conditioned future activity at those locations upon the completion of either a protocol-level survey to demonstrate the absence of such species at the site or “implementation of a Management Plan developed by a qualified biologist in consultation with appropriate jurisdictional agencies including California Department of Fish & Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” (Id. at 669.) The court found the EIR impermissibly deferred mitigation because it allowed for future formulation of land management aspects of the mitigation measures, and therefore impermissibly deferred the development of important mitigation measures until after project approval. (Id. at 669.) The court found the mitigation measures only contemplated a “generalized goal of maintaining the integrity” of species habitat, which did not satisfy CEQA’s requirement that specific criteria or performance standards be enumerated in order to find deferral of mitigation proper. (Id. at 70.) The EIR’s promise of future land management plans left “the reader in the dark about what land management steps will be City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

taken, or what specific criteria or performance standard will be met, if this presumption is confirmed by the later protocol studies.” (Ibid.)
The court indicated that the EIR in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center did include “many valid mitigation measures,” such as “various erosion controls and monitoring measures . . . [and] [p]reconstruction mitigation measures . . . to allow mobile animal species to vacate” areas where project activity would take place, as well as some details of what a land management plan to mitigate impacts might include, such as “periodic mowing, rotational grazing, and weed abatement.” (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at 669-670.) Ultimately, however, it found that the “success or failure of mitigation efforts in regard to impacts on such [special-status] species may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR. The fact that the future management plans would be prepared only after consultation with wildlife agencies does not cure these basic errors under CEQA, since no adequate criteria or standards are set forth.” (Id. at 670.)
Similarly, the DEIR defers mitigation of impacts to special-status species to just before the commencement of construction, and proposes, following the completion of preconstruction surveys, to establish “appropriate buffers” around those sites. (DEIR, p.

3.4-48.) The mitigation described in the DEIR, however, includes far fewer details than the EIR in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, which included specifics as to buffer size and minimum setbacks, as well as specified conditions to be met prior to the commencement of any project activity within those zones. Any discussion of what is considered an “appropriate” buffer, such as size and shape, as well as any specifics regarding avoidance measures, are entirely omitted from the DEIR. (DEIR, pp. 3.4-47–

50.) The document falls far short of even the mitigation found inadequate in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, stating only that “[m]onitoring shall be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects” on species. (DEIR, p. 3.4-

48.) The DEIR commits only to the completion of preconstruction surveys to confirm the presence of species of concern, rather than the more stringent and accurate protocol-level surveys proposed in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center. While the lead agency in San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center presumed the presence of special-status species in locations they were likely to occur—even when initial reconnaissance surveys failed to detect them—and proposed implementation of mitigation at those sites as a precautionary measure, the DEIR omits from its list of potentially impacted species a majority of the species that Dr. Smallwood observed during his site surveys or that are indicated as likely to occur by wildlife agencies’ reports and databases.

By deferring surveys to the time of future construction of each village, Dr.

Smallwood notes, “the DEIR effectively skips detection surveys altogether, and only City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

pretends that preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys are detection surveys.” (Smallwood Report, p. 35.)
This flawed approach fails to disclose the potential impacts of the project on biological resources, and fails to protect the species at the time of construction as well, because these species are generally the most difficult to detect and are least likely to be detected by preconstruction surveys due to the weaker protocols and timing of these types of surveys. Implementing preconstruction surveys as surrogates for detection surveys is therefore inadequate mitigation.
(Ibid.)
Performing these surveys, furthermore, just days before construction is set to begin makes the effort all but useless. Dr. Smallwood noted that take-avoidance surveys to avoid impacts to active nesting bird species would require a sizable force of biologists conducting many surveys on many dates throughout the breeding season on a site as large as the Project area. (Smallwood Report, p. 58.) Dr. Smallwood’s own efforts to conduct nesting surveys on another site that was only 12.74 acres in size, for instance, required at least 30 surveys over a partial breeding season, and the nests of most small birds that nest in trees, shrubs and on the ground still evaded detection. (Id. at pp. 58-59.) The DEIR fails to base its efforts at mitigation on accurate factual data, improperly defers formulation of mitigation measures until after the EIR has been certified and the Project has been approved, and/or provides confounding information that renders a meaningful review of its ability to minimize or avoid impacts to species impossible. For example:
• The DEIR proposes to conduct preconstruction surveys “within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31)” for mitigation of impacts to any protected bird species. (DEIR, p. 3.4-49.) As indicated by Dr. Smallwood, the “avian breeding season recognized by the CDFW is now 1 February through 15 September. The DEIR should be revised accordingly.” (Smallwood Report, p. 58.) • “Finding all of the active bird nests on the project site would require a phenomenal effort by many qualified biologists working together throughout the breeding season.” (Id. at 60.) Surveying a site 116 acres in size that contains more than 600 trees is infeasible and guaranteed to be ineffective at mitigating impacts to nesting bird species.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

• The DEIR’s improper deferral of mitigation and the language used to describe future mitigation efforts “allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable.” (Id. at 60.) • The DEIR provides incomplete, confounding, and misleading information relating to impacts to biological resources and the proposed mitigation of those impacts.

For example, in a discussion about compensatory mitigation, the DEIR lists a range of ratios to be used to determine the size of land conserved to compensate for the permanent loss of habitat caused by the Project. (DEIR, p. 3.4-49.) The DEIR indicates that these ratios are based on a 30-year-old CDFW staff report but does not offer any explanation or discussion of the facts or analysis that make this staff report an appropriate reference for the Project.
• The DEIR fails to provide substantial evidence or factual support for its determination that implementation of proposed mitigation will “ensure that potential impacts [to all biological resources at the Project site] are reduced to a less than significant level.” (DEIR, pp. 3.4-50–68.)
• Mitigation measure 3.4-9 is not a mitigation measure at all, but rather a description of the administrative and regulatory steps that should have been taken before a determination of impacts to the environment (which should have happened before the DEIR was circulated for public review). (DEIR, p. 3.4-56; Smallwood Report, p. 60.)
• The DEIR fails to propose mitigation for riparian habitat and wetlands because it erroneously—and without substantial evidence or factual support—concluded that the Project would have no impacts on these resources or that they are not subject to the protections afforded to federal or state jurisdictional waters. (DEIR, pp. 3.4- 55–57.) Dr. Smallwood describes, for example, evidence in the National Wetland Inventory, a publicly available U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website that provides maps and classifies wetland features. The site showed a classified wetland “readily visible in the aerial photos of the property, [that] is never discussed in the DEIR. This wetland is likely to be impacted by property development and is a potential ecological hotspot for listed species. Yet the DEIR fails to include mitigation associated with project impacts, such as drainage increasing or decreasing as a result of construction and stormwater management, or impacts to wildlife species.” (Smallwood Report, p. 61) • The DEIR proposes to compensate for the permanent loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat “by preservation and management of foraging habitat of at least a City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

similar quality and equivalent acreage at a biologically appropriate location. An example of similar quality shall be cropland for cropland, grassland for grassland, etc.” (DEIR, p. 3.4-48.) Dr. Smallwood points out that this is a misguided metric by which to measure “appropriate” habitat to compensate for this loss. “Appropriate would be protecting lands known to provide habitat to burrowing owls, whether that land be used in crop production or it is grassland or something else. This is important because most cropland in California is no longer occupied by burrowing owls, which are rapidly disappearing from California.” (Smallwood Report, p. 58.)
Based on all of the above, the DEIR fails to provide the bare minimum required by CEQA, such as facts and analysis, not bare conclusions and opinions. (King & Gardiner Farms, supra, 45 Cal.App.5th at 869.) Dr. Smallwood concluded that the DEIR “insufficiently discloses wildlife and plant resources on the Specific Plan area and the expanded Sphere of Influence.” (Smallwood Report, p. 34.) “The DEIR needs to be withdrawn from public circulation and revised after the completion of appropriate surveys.” (Smallwood Report, p. 44.)
III. THE DEIR FAILS TO FULLY ANALYZE AND DISCLOSE PROJECT IMPACTS TO WATER SUPPLY (DEIR CHAPTER 3.9)
The fundamental purpose of an EIR is to “provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.) An EIR shall include a detailed statement setting forth all significant effects on the environment of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(1).) “The informational purposes of [CEQA] are not satisfied by an environmental impact report that simply ignores or assumes a solution to the problem of supplying water to a proposed land use project.

Decision makers must, under the law, be presented with sufficient facts to evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the project will need.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 413.)
A. Groundwater Conditions and Impacts are Misreported
The City of Riverbank is located within the San Joaquin Valley and the Modesto Groundwater Subbasin, which is designated a high-priority basin by the Department of Water Resources (“DWR”). (DEIR, p. 3.9-21.) Current uses in the Project area are predominantly agricultural with some residential use. Modesto Irrigation District (“MID”) provides water supply for agricultural operations in the region and maintains two easements in the Project area.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

The City’s sole source of water supply is groundwater delivered through a pressurized distribution system from nine wells and two one-million-gallon storage tanks located in the north-central portion of the Subbasin; it produced about 4,452 AF of groundwater in 2020 according to the DEIR. The DEIR estimates that “at full build-out, for the entire City Planning Area (i.e. future demand within the City limits and General Plan areas), the projected water demand will be 14,610 AFY, or 3.2 times the 2020 production.” (DEIR, p. 3.9-9.)
According to the WSA prepared for the Project, water demands for the Project would be served using only the City’s existing groundwater supplies, and no other supply source is evaluated. (WSA, DEIR Appendix H, p. 9.) The City participated in the development of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (“GSP”) for the Modesto Subbasin in January 2022 as part of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association (“STRGBA”), in which the City’s supplies of groundwater were declared sufficient to meet current and projected future demands. (Modesto Subbasin GSP, p. 2-

14.)5
The WSA determined that, based on the findings in the GSP, as well as those of “various groundwater investigations performed on groundwater availability in the subbasin . . ., the City’s groundwater supplies are expected to be highly reliable for serving a future development such as the Proposed Project.” (Ibid.; WSA, p. 18; emphasis added.) This depiction of a “highly reliable” groundwater basin, however, is a considerable departure from the description provided by DWR in a January 2024 Staff Report in which DWR rejected the GSP as incomplete. DWR indicated that the GSP offered a wildly inaccurate depiction of the condition of the Subbasin, instead characterizing the Subbasin as dangerously depleted and in a state of continued overdraft.6 DWR staff rejected the GSP due, in part, to its insufficient assessment of impacts to the subbasin from this continued overdraft and inadequate analyses of the number and location of wells anticipated to go dry during the 20-year implementation period and resulting impacts to land uses and property interests. (Id. at 2.) 5 Available at:
https://www.strgba.org/Content/Documents/Documents/Modesto%20Subbasin%20GSP %2020220130.pdf.
6 Specifically, DWR found “the Subbasin’s Plan does not satisfy the objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act nor substantially comply with the GSP Regulations.” (Letter from DWR to Eric Thorburn, Oakdale Irrigation District re:

Sustainable Groundwater Management Office Evaluation of Modesto Subbasin 2022 GSP, dated January 18, 2024, p. 1, attached as Attachment 2.) City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

Questioning the GSP’s proposed management actions that “would allow a portion of the Subbasin to operate below minimum thresholds for an extended duration during the 20-year implementation period” without explaining how this approach would avoid undesirable results, the Staff Report concluded that:

It does not appear from the GSP that the GSA considered lasting impacts that may occur even if groundwater levels improve after years of being below minimum threshold levels, such as permanent changes in land use practices (e.g., farmland fallowed, converted, or sold), decreased property values and population changes associated with years of inadequate or unreliable groundwater supplies (because below existing well or pump depths), and impacts or damage to, or abandonment of, domestic or agricultural wells whose productivity decreases or ceases at groundwater levels below minimum thresholds.
(DWR Staff Report, p. 11.)
Noting that the substantial and well-documented impacts resulting from widespread over-pumping in the Central Valley are acknowledged in the GSP, the DWR Staff Report expressed concern that the GSP nonetheless proposed a management approach with the “potential to cause lasting or irreversible undesirable results related to land subsidence, water quality, and interconnected surface water in the Subbasin even if groundwater levels recover above the minimum thresholds after 20 years of Plan implementation.” (DWR Staff Report, p. 11.) The GSP contained no indication that these impacts were considered by the GSA or disclosed to interested parties. (Ibid.) Despite likewise acknowledging the “well-documented” impacts of pumping from the basin volumes of groundwater greater than could be reasonably replenished, the DEIR asserts that “the Modesto Subbasin is not at risk of depleting a large percentage of its total volume of groundwater supply,” before conceding that overdraft conditions will “require[] mitigation to meet the Subbasin sustainability goal.” (DEIR, p. 3.9-9.) The City claims in both the DEIR and the WSA that these overdraft conditions, according to the GSP, are “occurring primarily in the eastern Subbasin – not the central Subbasin where the City is located,” perhaps implying that future development in the City cannot contribute to overdraft conditions in the Subbasin. (Ibid.; WSA, p. 18.) Nevertheless, the documents assert, “many mitigation measures are presented in the GSP to ensure longterm sustainability of the Modesto Subbasin and will be implemented over the coming years.” (WSA, p. 18.)
The DWR Staff Report directly refutes the claim that these mitigation measures will “ensure long-term sustainability” of the Subbasin. Specifically, the DWR Staff City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

Report explains that the GSP “does not appear to provide reasonable means to mitigate actual overdraft.” (DWR Staff Report, p. 13.) Notably, the DWR Staff Report identified significant inaccuracies in the GSP’s estimates of the Subbasin’s projected overdraft, such as the baseline overdraft—upon which the extent of mitigation needed to achieve sustainability would be based—which was determined, without explanation, to be more than 10 times lower than actual overdraft values reported for the Subbasin in recent annual reports. (Ibid.) Against this inconceivably diminished baseline, the DWR Staff Report estimated that the Subbasin would need 218 years of full implementation of the GSP’s projects proposed to mitigate overdraft, combined with conditions requiring no additional overdraft, to offset the actual loss of storage reported to have been experienced in the Subbasin in two recent years of annual reporting. (Id. at 14.) According to the WSA prepared for the Project, “the total projected water supplies documented to be available for the Project during Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry water years during a 20-year projection are more than sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses.” (WSA, p. 22.) The WSA does not address, however, whether additional pumping of Subbasin groundwater to meet Project demands would have cumulative impacts on the basin and other groundwater users when considered together with other reasonably foreseeable demands on its diminishing groundwater levels.

The DEIR concedes that construction proposed by the Project would result in significant increases in impervious surface area at the site and reduced surfaces with moderate to high infiltration rates, resulting in reduced rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. (DEIR, p. 3.9-31.) As noted in the DEIR, the site contains a range of soil types with low, moderate, and high infiltration rates. “In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of groundwater recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff.” (Ibid.)
Evidence of the adverse impacts on groundwater recharge likely to result from Project development is found throughout the DEIR, such as in the statement that “the proposed Project would reduce the amount of pervious surfaces within the Project Area, [while] much of the site would be converted to impervious surface,” conceding that the Project would result in reduced groundwater recharge by decreasing surfaces with infiltration potential.
7 (DEIR, p. 3.9-34.) The construction of new municipal water wells 7 Confusingly, the DEIR follows this statement with the erroneous finding that “[t]his would result in opportunities for groundwater recharge after the Project Area is fully developed.” (DEIR, p. 3.9-34.)
City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

to meet Project demands will increase the capacity of available water and will eventually flow from the proposed Project wells to the rest of the City system—wells that were not included in the analysis provided in the WSA—would result in further depletion of the Subbasin’s available groundwater, contributing to its continued overdraft. (DEIR, p. 3.9-

33.)
The Project also proposes to convert land in agricultural production to urban uses, further decreasing the available surface area that currently contributes to groundwater recharge. Development of the greater Project area with impervious surfaces, and the subsequent collection of rainwater from those impervious surfaces which will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the Stanislaus River or other downstream aquatic facilities will further reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. In addition, future development that is highly likely to occur in the City’s expanded SOI, in the Reserve area for example, would increase water supply demands and decrease recharge opportunities further.8 These impacts were omitted from any discussion of impacts and assessments of available water supply. The findings reached by the DEIR and WSA that the proposed Project would not cause the substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, were based in large part on the erroneous conclusions of the GSP and related water supply investigations, which concluded that “the groundwater supplies are expected to be highly reliable” and which were summarily rejected as inaccurate and misleading by DWR’s GSP Staff Report. (See DEIR, p. 3.9-32; WAS, pp. 9, 18; GSP Staff Report, p.

13.)
CEQA’s requirement that an EIR provide information adequate to inform the public of a project’s significant impacts are not, as discussed above, satisfied by assumptions or unsupported conclusions regarding provision of water supply to a proposed project. (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 434.) “Decision makers must, under the law, be presented with sufficient facts to ‘evaluate the pros and cons of supplying the amount of water that the [project] will need.’” (Ibid., citing Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d at 829.) “The ultimate question under CEQA . . . is not whether an EIR establishes a likely source of water, but whether it adequately addresses the reasonably foreseeable impacts of supplying water to the project.” (Ibid.) Here, the DEIR’s conclusions regarding the adequate of a water supply are contrary to 8 “The entire Project Vicinity includes approximately 1,522 acres within the unincorporated county adjacent to the City of Riverbank. The Specific Plan Project area (i.e., the RWSP or Project) includes a 993-acre area proposed to be annexed and subsequently developed. The remaining land within the Project Vicinity is part of the SOI Amendment and would be held as Reserve land for possible long-range planning at some future time.” (WSA, p. 4.)
City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

readily available information regarding the status of the groundwater Subbasin. (See Attachment 2.)
B. Future Water Supply Impacts are Not Analyzed
An EIR must consider, among other impacts, the cumulative impact of past, present and probable future projects. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b); Santa Clarita, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at 721.) Large or long-term developments such as the proposed Project have been scrutinized for the adequacy of their analysis of future projects on impacts to water supplies:

An adequate environmental impact analysis for a large project, to be built and occupied over a number of years, cannot be limited to the water supply for the first stage or the first few years. While proper tiering of environmental review allows an agency to defer analysis of certain details of later phases of long-term linked or complex projects until those phases are up for approval, CEQA’s demand for meaningful information “is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 431; citing Santa Clarita, supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at 723.) “Tiering” of environmental review to defer analysis of projects that occur at multiple stages is encouraged and is appropriate when impacts and mitigation measures cannot be adequately determined during the first phase of analysis but are specific to later phases. Tiering, however, “does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (b)). Certain mitigation or impacts analyses may be impractical when a large-scale project is in the initial approval stages. “But the future water sources for a large land use project and the impacts of exploiting those sources are not the type of information that can be deferred for future analysis. An EIR evaluating a planned land use project must assume that all phases of the project will eventually be built and will need water, and must analyze, to the extent reasonably possible, the impacts of providing water to the entire proposed project.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 431; citing Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 182, 206 [Stanislaus Natural Heritage].)
Additionally, “the future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations (‘paper water’) are insufficient bases for decisionmaking under CEQA.” (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 432.) “Where, despite a full discussion, it is impossible to City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of possible replacement sources or alternatives to use of the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies.” (Ibid.) Here, DWR’s rejection of the STRGBA GSP noted that the projected overdraft estimates included in the GSP were significantly lower than the actual overdraft figures reported to DWR, indicating that the subbasin is being severely overdrafted, contrary to what Project proponents would have decisionmakers believe. As the Subbasin does not in fact offer a “highly reliable” water supply, as the DEIR and WSA insist, CEQA mandates discussion of an alternate supply to meet the Project’s demands.

C. Water Quality Impacts are Overlooked
The Project proposes planned urbanization of the Project area, which would result in “changes to land use, natural vegetation, and infiltration characteristics, and would introduce new sources of water pollutants,” such as sediment, oxygen-demanding substances (e.g., organic matter), nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus), heavy metals, bacteria, oil and grease, and toxic chemicals that can degrade receiving waters. (DEIR, p. 3.9-34.) Project-related increases in urban stormwater runoff may stem from erosion of disturbed areas, deposition of atmospheric particles derived from automobile or industrial sources, corrosion or decay of building materials, rainfall contact with toxic substances, decomposing plant materials, animal excrement, and spills of toxic materials on surfaces which receive rainfall and generate runoff. (DEIR, p. 3.9-35.) The DEIR identifies new sources of Project-related urban runoff, such as new residential uses within the Project area such as streets, driveways and parking areas, fertilizer wastes and bacterial contamination from yards, and hazardous materials storage constructed to serve new commercial development. (Ibid.)
These non-point source pollutants, such as automotive petroleum products, household hazardous materials, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and sediment, could result in both temporary and long-term impacts. (DEIR, p. 3.9-29.) Both the construction and long-term operations of the Project, combined with increases in impervious surface area at the site resulting from increased urban development, are likely to contribute to degradations in water quality as these pollutants become more ubiquitous with Project-induced population growth.

To address potential impacts to water quality from discharge of pollutants and stormwater runoff resulting from new development, the DEIR proposes the construction of a new storm drainage collection and conveyance system, which may or may not include a water quality system with detention basins, a system of drainage swales to treat and convey collected stormwater, and facilities designed to address water quality standards and requirements; this system would allegedly be designed to function City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

independently from surrounding developments. (DEIR, p. 3.9-29.) Much of the system’s details, including potential locations of detention basins and suggested layout of the system of collection and conveyance pipes, which may run “along the streets and within properties,” is deferred until the design phase. (Ibid.) Installation of the proposed storm drainage system would be realized via use of “MID-owned facilities for storm drainage discharge pending an agreement with MID.” (DEIR, p. 3.9-35.) Should the City fail to reach an agreement with MID, the City would need to devise an entirely new system through which to discharge stormwater by way of retention within basins and infiltration into the subsurface soils through infiltration trenches. (Ibid.) An agreement with MID, the provisions of which, such as discharge flowrate limitations, maintenance obligations, fees, and other terms, have not yet been established, will “likely also allow the MID to temporarily restrict stormwater discharges to the canals, which may result in longer storage periods for volume within the basins.” (DEIR, p. 3.9-36.) Adequate flood protection must be provided, by demonstrating that basins that have the capacity to store the volume sufficient to protect building pads from inundation from a 50-year design storm, as well as that of a higher-runoff storm event, such as the 100-year design storm storage volume, in the event that pumped discharge into the MID is temporarily restricted.

For the reasons discussed throughout the above sections, the DEIR fails as an informational document and fails to support its conclusions of Project-related impacts with substantial evidence as required under CEQA.

IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO FULLY ANALYZE AND DISCLOSE IMPACTS TO LAND USE (DEIR CHAPTER 3.10)
A specific plan EIR should contain analysis specific enough to reflect the level of detail in the plan. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15146.) However, analysis of significant effects “may not be deferred to later development under the specific plan, nor deferred to later tiered EIRs.” (Stanislaus Natural Heritage, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at 199.) No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless it is consistent with the general plan. (Gov. Code, § 65454.) An inconsistency between a general plan and a specific plan occurs not only when there is a direct conflict, but also when a specific plan is indirectly in conflict with the general plan because it would “frustrate the general plan’s goals and policies.” (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 379; California Land Use Practice (Cal. CEB 2023), § 2.55.)
City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

It is declared state policy that Local Agency Formation Commissions (“LAFCOs”), tasked with guiding development in each county by regulating the boundary changes of cities and districts, do so by “discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open-space and prime agricultural lands, encouraging the efficient provision of government services, and encouraging the orderly formation and development of local agencies.” (Gov. Code, § 56301). Any formation of a new district, incorporation of a city, annexation to or detachment from a city or district, . . . or merger or establishment of a subsidiary district is a “change of organization” that must be approved by a LAFCO. (See Gov. Code, §§ 56021, 56375.)
Stanislaus LAFCO, in keeping with this directive, embodies in its General Powers and Policy Guidelines the vital importance of agriculture in the County through policies directing that “boundary changes for urban development should only be proposed, evaluated, and approved in a manner which, to the fullest extent feasible, is consistent with the continuing growth and vitality of agriculture within the County.” (Stanislaus LAFCO General Powers and Policy Guidelines, Policy 22 – Agricultural Preservation Policy.) In line with the state requirement to consider the “effect of the [boundary change] proposal on maintaining the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands” (Gov. Code, § 56668, subd. (e)), Stanislaus LAFCO’s mandates for the preservation of agricultural lands in the County include:
• Guide development away from agricultural lands where possible and encourage efficient development of existing vacant lands and infill properties within an agency’s boundaries prior to conversion of additional agricultural lands. • Fully consider the impacts a proposal will have on existing agricultural lands. • Minimize the conversion of agricultural land to other uses. • Promote preservation of agricultural lands for continued agricultural uses while balancing the need for planned, orderly development, and the efficient provision of services.
(Stanislaus LAFCO General Powers and Policy Guidelines, Policy 22 – Agricultural Preservation Policy.)
The Project, including both the RWSP and the SOI expansion, fails to comply with several of the directives listed above, as explained below.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

A. Failure to Preserve Agricultural Lands and Seek Reasonable Alternatives
Stanislaus LAFCO expressed numerous concerns in comments to the City on the NOP for the DEIR. Among those was the prevention of urban sprawl—a valid cause for concern, given the City’s accelerated growth. A city’s SOI, according to Stanislaus LAFCO policies, is territory “eligible for annexation and the extension of urban services within a twenty-year period,” while a Primary Area within the SOI is “eligible for annexation and extension of urban services within a zero to ten-year period.” (Stanislaus LAFCO Response to NOP – River Walk Specific Plan, June 29, 2021, p. 1.) The City of Riverbank, meanwhile, last sought approval for an SOI expansion from LAFCO, for which it added “approximately 1,479 acres intended to accommodate the City’s growth over the next 20 years,” in 2016. (Ibid.) In 2019, the City annexed approximately 400 acres of this area “for residential and commercial uses.” (Ibid.) LAFCO, tasked with the goal to “protect and promote agriculture,” has adopted policies directing that “development should be guided away from agricultural lands, including prime agricultural land.” Contrary to this policy, “[i[t appears that the majority of the 1,535-acre sphere of influence expansion area is also considered prime farmland.” (Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 2.) LAFCO requested in its comments on the NOP that the City include in the DEIR a full description of land within the Project area considered prime agricultural land by both the Department of Conservation and LAFCO, as well as “a range of alternatives to the proposal, including alternatives that focus on lands already within the sphere of influence and non-prime lands.” (Ibid.) In addition to the above, Stanislaus LAFCO specifically requested that the City include in the DEIR a discussion of the following:
• Amendment proposals involving Sphere expansion that contain prime agricultural land will not be approved by LAFCO if there is sufficient alternative land available for annexation within the existing Sphere of Influence. The City’s analysis should identify undeveloped areas already within the City limits and Sphere of Influence that could be developed with similar uses. • Territory not in need of urban services, including open space, agriculture, nonprotested, or protested and not upheld Williamson Act contracted lands, shall not be assigned to an agency’s sphere of influence, unless the area’s exclusion would impede the planned orderly and efficient development of this area.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

• Sphere of influence boundaries shall, to the extent possible, maintain a separation between existing communities to protect open space and agricultural lands and the identity of an individual community.
(Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 2.)
Development of the proposed Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 661.33 acres of Prime Farmland, plus an additional 165.80 acres of land designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance by the state. (DEIR, p. 3.10-29.) The Project proposes to eliminate all of the land in the Project area currently designated as Agricultural Resource Conservation area. (DEIR, Table 3.10-5, p. 3.10-20.) Furthermore, the Project Area contains nine parcels under a Williamson Act contract. (DEIR, p. 3.10-

29.)
Far from a full discussion of the Stanislaus LAFCO requests, the DEIR instead includes vague descriptions and dubious explanations of its unfettered destruction of prime farmland in the County. For example, instead of devising alternatives to the proposed Project that would not conflict with land under a Williamson Act contract, the DEIR instead offers to the landowners under Williamson Act contracts the following solutions: “[1] file a notice of nonrenewal and wait nine years for the contract to expire, [2] cancel with the payment of fees equal to 12.5% of the property value, or [3] complete an agricultural easement exchange.” (DEIR, p. 3.10-29.) Though this does not offer any viable solution to the landowner, the City seems to think it brings the Project into compliance with LAFCO policies: “A proper cancellation and/or agricultural easement exchange would ensure that there is no conflict with a Williamson Act contract.” (DEIR, p. 3.10-30.)
Regarding the request to consider sufficient alternative land available within the existing SOI for the development of the Project’s proposed 2,432 dwelling units, the DEIR offers only the following paragraph:

The Riverbank Housing Element identifies development potential within the city limit (1,870 units) and 4,842 units within the SOI. These units may include developable areas on prime farmlands, but exclude lands with Williamson act contracts. However, it should be noted that development opportunities throughout the city limits and SOI do not provide for contiguous parcels that provide opportunities for large areas of master planned development similar to that proposed by the Specific Plan. (DEIR, p. 3.10-30.) No further discussion of why this land would be inappropriate for the proposed development is offered.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

Additionally, without full discussion, the DEIR indicates that the Project is subject to some mitigation measures, such as participation in Stanislaus LAFCO’s Agricultural Preservation Policy and the City’s Sustainable Agricultural Strategy, which “would assist in preserving farmland.” (DEIR, p. 3.10-29.) However, the DEIR offers no alternatives that would lessen these significant impacts, stating only that the “proposed Project would still result in the permanent conversion and loss of Prime Farmland. There are no feasible measures that would allow for the proposed Project to be developed according to the Goals and Objectives outlined in Section 2.0 Project Description, while mitigating the impact to an insignificant level.” (Ibid.)
B. Inconsistency with General Plan
To fulfill the requirements of LAFCO’s Agricultural Preservation Policy, cities are required to prepare a Plan for Agricultural Preservation upon application for an expansion of an SOI. The last time it sought approval for an expansion of its SOI in 2016, the City adopted a Sustainable Agricultural Strategy, which was used as a Plan for Agricultural Preservation for the City’s current SOI. “The Plan identified many of the City’s current General Plan policies, including Agricultural Resource Conservation Areas covering 1,300 acres west of the City, use of agricultural buffers, and overall policies related to infill development prior to consideration of additional annexation areas.” (Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 3.) The current proposal, LAFCO pointed out, “would remove the Agricultural Resource Conservation designation in the project area and represents a significant shift in General Plan policies, the impacts of which will need to be fully discussed and considered.” (Ibid.)
Rather than include a discussion of how it intends to comply with those areas of the General Plan that, as LAFCO pointed out, are inconsistent with the proposed Project, the DEIR states simply that it “analyzes lands included within the SOI expansion area (Project Area) and the annexation of the Specific Plan Area into the City of Riverbank, and it is intended to be used by LAFCO for their consideration of these approvals.

Annexation of the Specific Plan Area is consistent with the growth plans outlined in the Riverbank General Plan.” (DEIR, p. 3.10-25.) This is inadequate.

C. Inconsistency in Impacts Discussions
Furthermore, the DEIR provides inconsistent and confusing descriptions of what the Project actually is and what impacts it will have, making it impossible to know what the consequences of approving the Project will be.

City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

For example, the DEIR states that “all land outside of the Specific Plan Area, but within the SOI boundary change, would not be converted to non-agricultural uses under the proposed Project.” (DEIR, p. 3.10-29.) In the same section, the DEIR again states that parcels under a Williamson Act contract that are located “within the SOI, but outside the Specific Plan Area, would have no potential for conflict because they are not proposed for development.” (Ibid.) Just one page later, however, the DEIR includes a calculation of the total residential development contemplated by the Project, noting that the “Specific Plan would result in the development of up to 1,550 Low Density Residential (LDR) units, up to 702 Medium Density Residential (MDR) units, and up to 180 High Density Residential (HDR) units within these 18 residential villages covering 1,521.41 acres.” (Id. at p. 3.10-30.) This acreage covers the whole of the SOI expansion, not the 977 acres allotted for the RWSP development. Despite claims that the City cannot foresee development on the land outside the RWSP but inside the SOI, or that landowners cultivating farmland that will be swallowed up by the newly expanded SOI do not need to worry that their land will be developed, it is clear that the City has plans for all of the land that it proposes to include in the SOI.

As pointed out by Stanislaus LAFCO in its NOP comments, “[i]f both the City and County’s plans were developed to their extents, no separation of communities or agricultural land would remain . . . in this area of Stanislaus County.” (Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 2.)
D. Logical Boundaries and Creation of an Island
State law and LAFCO policies discourage development that results in the creation of “islands,” or unincorporated territories surrounded or substantially surrounded by a city or the city and another boundary, such as the ocean or a county line. (See Gov. Code, § 56744; Stanislaus LAFCO General Powers and Policy Guidelines, Policy 20 – Logical Boundaries.) Stanislaus LAFCO defines “island” as “unincorporated territory substantially surrounded by a city, or territory surrounded by a city on one or more sides and an adjacent city on the remaining sides.” (Stanislaus LAFCO Policies and Procedures, April 22, 2020.) Whether a territory is considered “substantially surrounded” is to be considered by LAFCO on a “case-by-case basis, through review of land uses, infrastructure, and patterns of service delivery within the island area and surrounding lands.” (Stanislaus LAFCO General Powers and Policy Guidelines, Policy 17.) As pointed out by LAFCO’s Executive Officer in comments on the NOP, the Specific Plan annexation, as proposed, “will leave the unincorporated Park Ridge/River Heights neighborhood surrounded by the City Limits on three sides and the County boundary on the fourth, creating an unincorporated island.” (Stanislaus LAFCO NOP comments, p. 3.) Despite receiving this note of caution from LAFCO concerning the City of Riverbank
May 16, 2024

undesirable creation of an island, the City failed to correct this error in the DEIR. Instead, it merely explained that because the “proposed annexation would leave approximately 65% of the area surrounded by the city limits, while approximately 35% would remain surrounded by unincorporated land,” the area would not meet the definition of Island, Potential Island, or Pocket that LAFCO had evidently relied on at some uncertain point in the past, according to vague references in the DEIR. (DEIR, p. 3.10-26.) Thus, the DEIR fails to address the issues brought to its attention by Stanislaus LAFCO.

V. CONCLUSION
“Because the EIR must be certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis on which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally significant action, and the public, being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. [Citations.] The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. [Citations.]” (Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 84, quoting Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 392.) Here, the DEIR fails to include the basic information required by CEQA to inform decisionmakers and the public. As a result, the DEIR must be corrected and recirculated prior to the City making any decision on the Project.

Very truly yours,

SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation
By:

Osha R. Meserve
Attachments:

1. Letter from Dr. Shawn Smallwood to Miguel Galvez, re: River Walk Specific Plan DEIR, dated April 17, 2024

2. Letter from DWR to Eric Thorburn, Oakdale Irrigation District re: Sustainable Groundwater Management Office Evaluation of Modesto Subbasin 2022 GSP, dated January 18, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Miguel Galvez
Contract City Planner
City of Riverbank
6707 3rd Street, Suite A,
Riverbank, CA 95367
17 April 2024
RE: River Walk Specific Plan DEIR
Dear Mr. Galvez,
I write to comment on the insufficient analysis of potential impacts to biological resources that would result from the River Walk Specific Plan, which I understand proposes to add 2,432 residential units on 997.18 acres on which walnut and almond orchards are grown adjacent to the Stanislaus River and its riparian forest. I also understand that the added City’s Sphere of Influence would be 1,522 acres. The site is rich in wildlife, including special-status species. I am concerned that the analyses of potential impacts to plants and wildlife in the River Walk Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) are much too cursory and coarse-grained to serve as sufficient review, and some analyses of potential impacts are missing. In fact, despite requests to the City, I could not find a technical report of the methods and results of the biological resources study allegedly performed by Steve McMurtry. Also, the DEIR’s mitigation measures would be inadequate in the face of the types and magnitudes of the impacts of development at the site of the River Walk Specific Plan.

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 as Exhibit A.

SITE VISIT
I visited the site of the proposed project for nearly 3.7 hours from 14:10 to 17:52 hours on 24 February 2024, and for 4.05 hours from 06:57 to 11:02 hours on 1 April 2024. I surveyed from the levee bank along the Stanislaus River, scanning for wildlife with use of binoculars. I recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife I detected, including those 2 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 clear with no wind and 70° F on 24 February, and clear with no wind and 42° to 58° F on 1 April. Most of the site was in agriculture, mostly walnuts and almonds, but also hayfields and irrigated pastures and vineyards (Photos 1 – 4).

Numerous stands of blue elderberry grow along the levee, many with large-diameter trunks suitable for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Photos 5 and 6).

Photo 1. Disked fields, vineyards, almonds and a Valley oak on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024.
3 Photo 2. Blue elderberry (left) and almonds on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024.

Photo 3. Riparian forest on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024. 4 Photo 4.

Riparian
forest on
the
Specific
Plan
area, 24
February
2024.
5 Photo 5. Blue elderberry (foreground) and walnuts on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024.
6 Photo 6. Trunks of many of the site’s blue elderberry shrubs are amply thick for supporting the endangered Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Photo taken 1 April 2024.
7 While surveying at the project site, I detected 53 species of vertebrate wildlife on 24 February and 64 species of vertebrate wildlife on 1 April 2024 for a total of 75 species (Table 1). Among those 75 species were 13 with special-status, including Swainson’s hawk which is listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (Table 1). I saw Swainson’s hawks (Photo 7) and Cooper’s hawks (Photos 8 and 9), redshouldered hawks (Photos 10 and 11), yellow-billed magpie and acorn woodpecker (Photos 12 and 13), yellow-rumped warbler and bushtit (Photos 14 and 15), red-tailed hawks (Photo 16 and 17), turkey vulture (Photo 18), common merganser and Canada goose (Photos 19 and 20), California scrub-jay (Photos 21 and 22), tree swallows (Photos 23 and 24), western bluebird and double-crested cormorant (Photos 25 and 26), mourning doves (Photos 27 and 28), northern flicker, northern mockingbird and oak titmouse (Photos 29, 30, 31), Anna’s hummingbird (Photo 32), golden-crowned sparrow and spotted towhee (Photos 33 and 34), house wren and western gray squirrel (Photos 35 and 36), Lincoln’s sparrow and white-crowned sparrow (Photos 37 and 38), and Nuttall’s woodpecker and wood ducks (Photos 39 and 40) among other species whose photos were not good enough to share or who eluded photo-capture but are listed in Table 1.

Early signs of breeding were evident on 24 February, but more obvious on 1 April. Most of the birds were divided into pairs by 24 February, and some members of pairs were inseparable. A male wood duck incessantly chased a female. The male northern flickers incessantly chased females, and more aggressively each other. Many nests from previous years were visible in trees that were just beginning to bud, and some birds such as redtailed hawks were already occupying nest structures. On 1 April, I saw many birds aggressively defending breeding territories, and many birds carried nest material to nest sites. Red-shouldered hawks were building a nest. Tree swallows were establishing and defending cavity nests. A pair of Swainson’s hawks perched next to each other at a location I assumed was to become their nest site. I assume that most of the wildlife species I detected on the site also breed on the site, although a few species are likely to move on before nesting, and others have yet to arrive.

Whereas most of the wildlife I saw was associated with the riparian forest along the Stanislaus River, many of the animals spilled over into the walnut and almond orchards west of the levee. Many animals foraged on agricultural land, and many gathered nest material from the open field between the orchards and from the orchards themselves.

The open field that had been disked over the last year or so was often occupied by whitecrowned sparrows and mourning doves, and hunted by raptors. This open field was also visited by wild turkeys. I saw birds using what the DEIR characterizes as an agricultural “ditch.” This ditch, which looked to me more like a channelized stream with a relatively mature riparian woodland, supported a lot of bird traffic, most of which was of species I could not identify due to distance.
8 Table 1. Species of wildlife I observed during 3.7 hours of survey on 24 February 2024.

Common name Species name Status1 24 MAR 1 APR Notes
Sierran treefrog Pseudacris sierra X Calls widespread
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis X Levee
Canada goose Branta canadensis X Entered site in evening Wood duck Aix sponsa X X Pair along River
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X Flew over walnuts, Riparian Common merganser Mergus merganser X Females on River
California quail Callipepla californica X Covey
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo X X Tracks
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X One at edge Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X Pairs throughout
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X Pair at elderberry
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X “Ditch”
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca X X Calls
Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus scolopateus X Flock overflight Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL X Flew along River Great blue heron Ardea herodias X Over walnuts and riparian Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X X Walnuts, open field, Riparian Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, BOP X Flew along River
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii TWL, BOP X X Oak by levee Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP X X Riparian
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP X Pair in Riparian Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X 3 pairs
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP X Riparian
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X Walnuts
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon X Riparian
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X Riparian
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens X X Riparian
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X X Riparian Northern flicker Colaptes auratus X X Many pairs
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X Walnuts, Levee
9 Common name Species name Status1 24 MAR 1 APR Notes
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X Flew form walnuts to riparian California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X Throughout site American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X Walnuts, Riparian Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC X Oak by levee
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X Riparian
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X Riparian
House wren Troglodytes aedon X Riparian
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X X Riparian
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor X X Riparian
Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X Walnuts, Riparian
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X Riparian
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula X Riparian
Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis X Riparian
White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis X X Riparian Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X Oaks by levee European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X Riparian Western bluebird Sialia mexicana X X Riparian
Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus X Riparian
American robin Turdus migratorius X Riparian
Pine siskin Spinus pinus X Riparian
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X Walnuts, Riparian
American goldfinch Spinus tristis X Riparian
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X Riparian
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native X Riparian
Modesto song sparrow Melospiza melodia SSC3 X Riparian
Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla X Elderberry, Walnuts, Riparian White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X By levee Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X X Levee
California towhee Melozone crissalis X Riparian
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X X Riparian
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater X Riparian
Townsend’s warbler Setophaga townsendi X Riparian
10 Common name Species name Status1 24 MAR 1 APR Notes
Orange-crowned warbler Leiothlypis celata X Riparian
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X Many in riparian, orchards Broad-footed mole Scapanus latimanus X Burrows in riparian American beaver Ondatra zibethicus X Tracks at River’s edge Western gray squirrel Sciurus griseus X X Riparian
California ground squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi X X Burrows Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis X Tracks
Raccoon Procyon lotor X X Tracks
Coyote Canis latrans X X Levee
Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus X X Tracks
Bobcat Felis rufus X Tracks
California vole Microtus californicus X Many burrows, runways Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X Burrow systems
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5). 11 Photo 7. A pair of Swainson’s hawks on the Specific Plan Area, 1 April 2024.

Photo 8.

Male Cooper’s
hawk
splitting off
from a female
on the
Specific Plan
area, 1 April
2024.
12 Photo 9. A Cooper’s hawk on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024. I encountered this Cooper’s hawk in an oak just as soon as I began my survey. 13 Photos 10 and 11.

Red-shouldered
hawk flying to its
nest, and later
adding nest
material to the nest,
1 April 2024.
14 Photos 12 and 13. Yellow-billed magpie (left) and acorn woodpecker on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024. Yellow-billed magpies are US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern.

Photos 14 and 15. Yellow-rumped warbler (left) and bushtit on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024. Both of these species are abundant on the Specific Plan area. 15 Photo 16. One member of a pair of red-tailed hawks on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024. There were at least three pairs of red-tailed hawks in the early stages of nesting.
16 Photo 17. Pair of red-tailed hawks near their nest in riparian woodland growing out of what the DEIR refers to as a ditch.
17 Photo 18. One of many turkey vultures on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024.

This one was feeding on whatever it was inside the tree cavity, otherwise known as an ecosystem service.
18 Photos 19, 20. Common mergansers and Canada goose on the Specific Plan area. 19 Photos 21 and 22.

One of many
California scrub-jays
on the Specific Plan
area, 24 February
2024 (top), and
another carrying nest
material on 1 April
2024 (right).
20 Photos 23 and 24. Tree
swallows struggling over nest
territory (top) and a male at a
nest site (right) on the Specific
Plan area, 1 April 2024.
21 Photos 25 and 26. Western bluebird and double-crested cormorant on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024.
22 Photos 27 and 28. Mourning
dove on the Specific Plan area, 24
February 2024 (top), and another
on a walnut tree, 1 April 2024
(left).
23 Photos 29 and 30. Northern flicker and northern mockingbird on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024.

Photo 31. Oak titmouse on the Specific Plan Area, 1 April 2024. 24 Photo 32. Anna’s hummingbird atop blue elderberry on the Specific Plan Area, 1 April 2024.
25 Photos 33 and 34. Golden-crowned sparrow on blue elderberry (top) and spotted towhee in riparian woodland on the Specific Plan Area, 1 April 2024. 26 Photo 35. House wren in
riparian forest on the
Specific Plan Area, 1 April
2024.

Photo 36. Western gray
squirrel in riparian
woodland on the Specific
Plan Area, 1 April 2024.
27 Photo 37. Lincoln’s sparrow on the Specific Plan Area, 1 April 2024. 28 Photo 38. White-crowned sparrow on blue elderberry on the Specific Plan Area, 1 April 2024.
29 Photos 39 and 40. Nuttall’s woodpecker on the Specific Plan Area, 1 April 2024 (top), and Wood ducks flying along Stanislaus River on the Specific Plan area, 24 February 2024. The male incessantly chased the female.
30 Although I saw 75 species of vertebrate wildlife during my two brief surveys, I must point out that the species of wildlife I detected on a small portion of the Specific Plan Area comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during my surveys.

Reconnaissance surveys, such as the one I completed at the project site, cannot support species’ absence determinations, but they can be useful for confirming presence of species. Such surveys can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not detected, thereby revealing the degree to which the survey sampled the local wildlife community that was available at the time of the survey. One way to do this is to model the pattern in species detections with time into a survey. The cumulative number of species’ detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). In the case of my surveys on the Specific Plan Area, the patterns in the data predict that had I spent more time on site, or had I help from more biologists, I would have detected many more than the 53 species I detected on 24 February 2024 and the 64 species I detected on 1 April 2024. Based on diurnal visualscan surveys continued through at least one year, the model fit to the February data predicts 180 species, and the model fit to the April data predicts 126 species.

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time based on my
surveys on the
evening of 24
February (blue)
and the morning
of 1 April 2024
(red). Note that
the relationships
would differ if the
surveys were
based on another
method or during
another season.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Species count, 02/24/24
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.996, loss = 27
Model prediction
r
2 = 0.99, loss = 135.4
Species count, 04/01/24
95% CI, surveys at 34
nearby sites, 2018-2023
YAPR
31 The patterns in the data also indicate that my rate of species detections at the project site far exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval I estimated from 52 surveys at other project sites I have surveyed in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley since 2019 (Figure 1). In other words, wildlife species richness at the project site far exceeds the species richness I have found at other project sites in the region.

The site supports many species of wildlife, including many more than I could detect during a brief reconnaissance survey. However, although this modeling approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years because many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat. I surveyed only in winter, and therefore was unlikely to see some of the species that would use the site in spring, summer or fall.

By use of an analytical bridge, I can apply a model developed from a much larger, more robust data set at a research site to predict the number of wildlife species that would make use of the project site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Alameda County, 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 used at the project site. At each of the 46 survey stations at my research site, 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: 𝑅̂ =
1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected.

The models’ coefficients of determination, r
2, ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97
(95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I detected 21.8 species over the first 7.75 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (7.75 hours to match the number of hours I surveyed at the project site), which composed 38.2% of the total predicted species I would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 75 species I detected after my 7.75 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 38.2% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, I would likely detect 75

0.382 ⁄ = 196 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming my ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 196 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 34 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife. To check on these predictions, I analytically bridged my 32 findings at the River Walk Specific Plan to a similar site I surveyed 41 times where a walnut orchard abuts riparian woodland along the American River in Rancho Cordova. I got the exact same prediction of 196 species if I was to continue surveys throughout a year or longer.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019.

Again, however, my prediction of 196 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 34 specialstatus species, is derived from a visual-scan survey during the daytime, and would not detect nocturnal birds and mammals such as owls and bats. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. One or two reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but this level of effort certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site.

EXISTING ENVIRNMENTAL 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 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
33 local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these needed steps have not been completed.

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 project site or nearby, 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.

According to the DEIR (page 3.4-1), Steve McMurtry completed at least four reconnaissance-level surveys in December 2019 and in March, May and June 2020. In a reply communication to Osha Meserve, the City of Riverbank (Miguel Galvez email of 7 March 2024) reports that no technical report of the McMurtry’s surveys has been prepared. Were the DEIR to include all of the technical data and reporting needed to achieve the public disclosure objective of CEQA, then the lack of a technical report from McMurtry would be of no consequence. However, the DEIR fails to disclose salient information, such as methodological details needed by the reader to determine whether McMurtry achieved the minimum plant survey standards of CDFW (2018), and such as the species of wildlife detected by McMurtry.

According to the DEIR’s summary of McMurtry’s surveys, his objectives were ambitious, including to establish existing conditions; to verify the findings of his desktop review; to identify habitat types, hydrologic features, topography, soils, and vegetation; to detect the presence of wildlife and the potential presence of wildlife; and to inspect for upland and aquatic habitat functions. The DEIR reports that his surveys were timed to detect breeding birds and amphibians, and active reptiles, and he reportedly recorded all signs of wildlife including tracks, and he followed CDFW’s (2018) plant survey guidelines.

However, to achieve all of the stated objectives, McMurtry would have needed to perform many hours of surveys over many days on the very large River Walk Specific Plan area, as well as the extended Sphere of Influence. The DEIR fails to report the dates McMurtry surveyed, at what times of day he began his surveys, and how long his surveys lasted. The reader of the DEIR is provided no information to ascertain whether or to what degree McMurtry could have achieved the stated objectives.

The DEIR does not report whether McMurtry surveyed reference sites for special-status species of plants, which is a key CDFW (2018) standard. Nor does the DEIR report key details needed to interpret the survey results, such as the survey start times and the survey durations. No explanation is reported of how McMurtry inspected or evaluated the site to document the site’s potential to support special-status species. Did the biologist carry a checklist of resources needed by each special-status species? The DEIR fails to summarize McMurtry’s qualifications for conducting the surveys for specialstatus species of plants and animals. In short, the DEIR neglects to report the most essential methodological details the reader needs to know in order to accurately interpret McMurtry’s survey findings.
34 The DEIR does not report what McMurtry found on the Specific Plan study area.

Although the DEIR reports some of the species “commonly seen” – whether by McMutry or in general is unclear, there is no list of species that were detected. Nor is there any context provided within which the reader is able to interpret detections or lack of detections of wildlife and plant species in the Specific Plan area. There is no discussion of the detection probabilities associated with any of the special-status species that are typical of reconnaissance surveys.

I am concerned that the DEIR’s reporting insufficiently discloses wildlife and plant resources on the Specific Plan area and the expanded Sphere of Influence. Based on reporting in the DEIR, McMurtry surveyed 806.94 acres. This acreage was 80.9% of the Specific Plan area and 53% of the proposed added Sphere of Influence. In other words, McMurtry appears to have been denied access to nearly 20% of the Specific Plan area and to nearly half of the proposed new Sphere of Influence. According to the DEIR, the project applicant lacked control over the lands within the Sphere of influence but outside the Berghill Boundary. However, the DEIR provides no explanation for McMurtry’s lack of access to 190 acres on the Specific Plan area. Denial of access in this context would indicate commitments to prevent disclosure of sensitive resources, which would not be consistent with the spirit and intent of CEQA.

The DEIR explains that McMurtry attempted to mitigate for his lack of access to hundreds of acres within and outside the Berghill Boundary by using binoculars and a spotting scope to search for wildlife on the acreages to which he lacked access. However, the methods described cannot overcome the deficiency of lack of access, because the areas to which McMurtry was denied access are too large, and there were too many places and too many ways in which wildlife on the inaccessible properties could have evaded detection. I have performed hundreds of surveys from the perimeters of properties of proposed projects, some of which I also gained full access. I can therefore attest to the large differences in detection probabilities between full access and only peripheral visual-scan access. Full access vastly improves the detection probabilities associated with reptiles and amphibians, as well as with mammals that typically leave less visible sign (burrows, tracks, scats) around a property’s periphery. Many birds are also more readily detectable from on-site, such as burrowing owl, long-eared owl, yellow warbler and willow flycatcher. Without accessing properties, McMurtry was unlikely to detect Crotch’s bumble bee, western bumble bee, Monarch, valley elderberry longhorn beetle nor any other special-status species of arthropod, as not even a spotting scope would have improved McMurtry’s chances with such small animals.

For no special-status species was a protocol-level detection survey completed. Even though there was cause to expect the presence of special-status species including, but not limited to, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Swainson’s hawk, giant gartersnake, burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, western and Crotch’s bumble bees, monarch and other special-status species, no detection surveys were conducted. Instead, the DEIR reports that preconstruction take-avoidance surveys would be completed prior to construction of each village. Preconstruction take-avoidance surveys do not provide anywhere close to the same detection probabilities as do detection surveys, because such 35 surveys are initiated only if construction commences within specific times of the year (see the mitigation measures for timing details), they are constrained to narrow dateranges, and they are not performed to the same standards of effort. By deferring surveys to the time of construction of each village, the DEIR effectively skips detection surveys altogether, and only pretends that preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys are detection surveys. This flawed approach fails to disclose the potential impacts of the project on biological resources, and fails to protect the species at the time of construction as well, because these species are generally the most difficult to detect and are least likely to be detected by preconstruction surveys due to the weaker protocols and timing of these types of surveys. Implementing preconstruction surveys as surrogates for detection surveys is therefore inadequate mitigation.

Environmental Setting Informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the reconnaissance survey is not going to detect all of the species of wildlife that make use of the site. This step can identity those species yet to be detected at the site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such determinations (see below).

The City of Riverbank, Development Services Department’s Contract City Planner, Mr.

Miguel Galvez, provided supplemental information in the form of a record search which contained two documents, a two-page California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) database query (5 January 2022) and the automated US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) report: “List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project,” dated January 5, 2022. These standard documents are designed to inform project applicants regarding potential species that may occupy the locale, and their status at the time of data request.

These documents are not intended to be definitive species or habitat descriptors.

Indeed, the USFWS document suggests on page 2 that a Biological Assessment or biological evaluation “be prepared to determine whether the project may effect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat.” No Biological Assessment or biological evaluation was provided.

Looking more closely at the CNDDB report, it states specifically at the bottom of each page: Information Expires 7/1/2022. The use of expired information led to a chain of defective analyses, starting with the misrepresentation of the legal status of two species of bumble bees on DEAR pages 3.4-34 and 35. The species’ status was in review in 2021 and updated by the State on 30 September 2022, long before the 2024 DEIR. The 2024 DEIR (p. 3.4-35) erroneously states, that the bees “are not specifically protected under 36 state or federal law.“ This is incorrect. (https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/News/ updates-to-the-legal-status-of-bumble-bees-in-california#gsc.tab=0) According to the DEIR, the initial pool of special-status species considered for inclusion in its analysis of occurrence potential was drawn from queries of CNDDB occurrence records on the local 7.5-minute Quadrangle and the eight surrounding Quads. This screening step, however, is flawed. 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.” The DEIR misuses CNDDB.

CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer or permit 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 CNDDB’s inception. The lack of CNDDB records for species only recently assigned special status would have been due to insufficient time having elapsed since the assignments. And because negative findings are not reported to CNDDB, CNDDB cannot provide the basis for estimating occurrence likelihoods, either. The DEIR’s analysis of special-status species occurrence likelihoods is fundamentally flawed.

In my assessment based on database reviews and a site visit, 101 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to be analyzed for occurrence potential at one time or another (Table 2). Of these, 13 (13%) were confirmed on the site by my survey visit, and 27 (27%) have been documented in databases within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 11 (11%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 40 (40%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Half (51) of the special-status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore likely supports many special-status species of wildlife. On any given day, one or more yet-to-be documented special-status species likely make use of the project site, but being there to document that use probably requires multiple surveys (see Figures 1 and 2).

Reconnaissance surveys are not designed to support absence determinations of any of these species. Therefore, sufficient survey effort should be directed to the site to either confirm that the species in Table 2 use the site or to support absence determinations.

The DEIR analyzes occurrence likelihoods of only 24 of the special-status species of wildlife in my Table 2. Of these, the DEIR determines 4 are absent, 9 have potential to occur, 1 has limited habitat on site (unsure what this means), habitat exists for six, and four are commonly seen. However, of the four determined to be absent, occurrence 37 records of one are nearby. Of the six determined to potentially occur, the occurrence records of one are very close.

Of the 77 special-status species whose occurrence likelihoods are not analyzed in the DEIR, ten have been documented on the Specific Plan area, 23 have been documented within 1.5 miles, seven have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles, and 34 have been documented between 4 and 30 miles. The DEIR neglects to analyze the occurrence likelihoods of nine special-status species that actually occur, as well as 68 others that likely occur on the River Walk Specific Plan area. The DEIR is inadequate.

In addition to inadequate analysis, the DEIR is misleading on numerous points. For example, the DEIR (3.4-35) says the special-status species of bumble bees “are not specifically protected under state or federal law.” To the contrary, western bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble bee are candidate Endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. Candidate species are protected to the same degree as species listed as Threatened or Endangered (see Fish & Game Code section 2052.1). They are also special-status species under CEQA.

The DEIR attempts to downplay the Specific Plan’s potential impacts to western bumble bee by attributing its decline to a parasite and to honeybees. However, the Xerxes society also identifies habitat loss and pesticide use (https://xerces.org/endangeredspecies/species-profiles/at-risk-bumble-bees/western-bumble-bee) as causes for the decline. If western bumble bee occurs on the Specific Plan area, then habitat loss caused by the development of the River Walk Specific Plan could contribute substantially to the extirpation of western bumble bee.

The DEIR (p. 3.4-36) claims that habitat for the three special-status species of bumble bee would be created by yards of new homes, parks, and along the river corridor.

However, the river corridor would not create new habitat because the river corridor already exists. As for yards and parks, the DEIR provides no evidence that yards or parks have ever provided habitat to the three special-status species of bumble bee at issue. Frankly, the DEIR’s claim is ridiculous.

The DEIR (Table 3.4-7) asserts that Molestan blister beetle is absent from the site, but the DEIR presents no evidence in support of this assertion. The argument that is provided is conclusory. In reality, next to nothing is known of the habitat of Molestan blister beetle, other than it occurs in grassland and woodland, but of which are present on the Specific Plan area.

The DEIR (p. 3.4-39) downplays the likelihood of occurrence of giant gartersnake by pointing out the lack of CNDDB records in Stanislaus County, with the nearest CNDDB record being 143 miles north, and the fact that CDFW did not mention this species in its 2021 letter in response to the NOP. Whether CNDDB records exist or whether CDFW mentioned the species in its letter in response to the NOP is irrelevant in either case. As I commented earlier, CNDDB is a positive-sighting data base, and therefore cannot be used in support of absence determinations. Moreover, CDFW’s letters are not the determiners of which species need to be considered for analysis in an EIR. 38 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. DEIR entries are possible = “potentially present,” habitat = “habitat present,” absent = “not present.” Entries in bold font identify species I observed.

Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
DEIR Data base
records, Site
visits
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT Possible Very close (DEIR) Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Absent Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Possible In region Western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis CCE Possible In range California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FT, CT, WL Absent Coast, northern central valley
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Absent In region
Northern legless lizard Anniella pulchra SSC Absent In region Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Habitat In region Giant gartersnake Thamnophis gigas FT, CT Habitat In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Habitat Nearby Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica SSC Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE, BCC In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2, BCC Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region
39 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
DEIR Data base
records, Site
visits
Lesser sandhill crane Antigone canadensis canadensis SSC3 In region Greater sandhill crane Antigone canadensis tabida CT, FP In region American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC In region
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL On site 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 On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP On site
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Common Nearby Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,

BOP, WL
Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Common Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close 40 Common name Species name Status
1 Occurrence potentials
DEIR Data base
records, Site
visits
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP On site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Habitat On site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Common On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP On site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP Habitat Very close (DEIR) 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 Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC On site
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Common On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP In region
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 In region Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Nearby
Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC On site
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Nearby Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
41 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potentials
DEIR Data base
records, Site
visits
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC In region
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Modesto song sparrow Melospiza melodia mailliardi SSC3 On site Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC In range Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Habitat Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Limited habitat
Nearby
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3, BCC In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Possible In range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H Possible In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus SSC, WBWG:H Possible In range Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H Possible In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M Possible In range
Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M Throughout CA Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM Possible 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 42 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. 43 Many of the DEIR’s characterizations of wildlife are inaccurate, and hence the DEIR inaccurately discloses information about wildlife to the public. For example, whereas Ferruginous hawks are said to nest in the region (DEIR p. 3.4-47), the species is actually a winter migrant to the region and it nests far to the north. Whereas the DEIR says the Central Valley population of Swainson’s hawk migrates to central and south America (DEIR p. 3.4-47), the Swainson’s hawk actually migrates to another part of North America, i.e., Mexico. Whereas the DEIR reports that orchard trees are not appropriate nest trees for Swainson’s hawk (DEIR p. 3.4-47), I have documented Swainson’s hawks nesting in walnuts. The DEIR provides a map of potential Swainson’s hawk nesting sites in the River Walk Specific Plan area, but neglects to include any of the oaks and other large trees that grow along the ditches and orchard edges interior to the mapped polygon intended to represent the species’ potential nest area. The map is based on no data; nor is the map based on protocol-level detection surveys because no such surveys have been completed.

The DEIR (p. 3.4-43) reports misleadingly on many aspects of burrowing owl natural history and conservation status. Whereas the DEIR reports that CDFW protects burrowing owl due to the species’ decline in the Central Valley, it actually does so due to its statewide status. Whereas the DEIR reports that burrowing owls reside in abandoned ground squirrel burrows, they actually reside in burrow systems that are concurrently occupied by ground squirrels, a species shoes presence benefits burrowing owls and is mutually benefitted by the presence of burrowing owls through mutual vigilance for predators. The DEIR opines on the low availability of high-quality burrowing owl foraging habitat on the Specific Plan area, speculating wildly about how certain growth stages of field crops might impede foraging success of burrowing owls. No evidence is cited in support of any of this speculation. A particular growth phase of watermelon production is not going to thwart occupancy by burrowing owls, nor would the temporary period of tall vegetation of any kind (Smallwood and Morrison 2018).

The DEIR (p. 3.4-44) claims that the levee lacks small mammal burrows, making it less ideal for burrowing owl foraging. However, I saw evidence of numerous small mammals on the levee. I found burrows of ground squirrels, Botta’s pocket gophers and California voles. I saw numerous vole runways through the grass on the levee. The DEIR’s characterization of the levee does not comport with what I saw.

The DEIR (p. 3.4-44) reports that McMurtry saw no burrowing owls on the Specific Plan area, but this reporting can be factual while also pseudoscientific. Reconnaissance surveys are not detection surveys, and McMurtry did not come close to meeting the minimum survey standards of CDFW (2012). It is irrelevant that McMurtry saw no burrowing owls.

The DEIR (p. 3.4-44) reports that although California ground squirrel burrows exist on the Specific Plan area, none of the burrows were large enough to support burrowing owls. I have yet to discover ground squirrel burrows too small to support burrowing owls. One ground squirrel burrow I happened to notice due to the placement of a poison bait dispenser next to it (Photo 41) was certainly large enough to support burrowing owls. What the DEIR reports is not true. Furthermore, it is not believable that 44 McMurtry examined every ground squirrel burrow that occurs on the 1,522-acre extended Sphere of Influence. Even had he examined all of the burrows, burrowing owls do not always leave sign at the burrows in which they nest, or at least not early during the nesting season.

Photo 41. Ground squirrel burrow (left side of photo) next to a poison bait dispenser on the project site. The burrow is large enough for burrowing owls.

The DEIR (p. 3.4-44) asserts that the River Walk Specific Plan would no direct impact on burrowing owls, but that it would have an indirect impact on burrowing owl habitat.

However, the loss of habitat is a direct impact on burrowing owls. Habitat is defined as that part of the environment that is used by a species (Hall et al. 1997). Therefore, loss of habitat is directly translatable to loss of individuals, because the environment’s capacity to support those individuals is eliminated. It is just this type of conclusion in CEQA review documents throughout California that has resulted in a statewide rapid decline of burrowing owls. A petition to list burrowing owls under the California Endangered Species Act was submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission on the day I prepared these comments, 5 March 2024. The DEIR needs to be withdrawn from public circulation and revised after the completion of appropriate surveys.

POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
An impacts analysis should consider whether and how the proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. In the following I introduce three types of impacts likely to result from the project, and which need to be analyzed in a revised DEIR.

PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY REDUCED BY HABITAT LOSS
The River Walk Specific Plan would contribute substantially to habitat fragmentation, which poses serious problems to wildlife in the region. Habitat fragmentation and 45 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). None of these impacts, however, are specifically addressed in the DEIR. I did not see that the term, habitat fragmentation, is mentioned in the DEIR. Likewise, the loss of productive capacity is not discussed at all in the DEIR.

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 is to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Two study sites in grassland-wetlandwoodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982). I averaged these estimates with my own estimate of total nest density from 1.32 acres of riparian woodland at a Rancho Cordova study site that I surveyed 30 times throughout the breeding season of 2023, and where I found a total nest density of 28.79 nest sites/acre. Against the acreages of the River Walk Specific Plan area and the proposed extended Sphere of Influence, I multiplied total nests per acre estimated at other study sites and adjusted by assumed differences in total nest density on landscape elements for which such estimates are unavailable (Table 3). I estimate the River Walk Specific Plan area supports 14,547 nest sites, and the Sphere of Influence supports 21,783 nest sites.

The loss of 14,547 nest sites on the River Walk Specific Plan area and of 21,783 nest sites on the Sphere of Influence would qualify as significant and very substantial project impacts, which are not specifically analyzed in the DEIR. However, the impact does not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as nest substrate is removed and foraging grounds graded in preparation for impervious surfaces, and in the case of the riparian woodland, by loss of foraging areas on the agricultural lands and by the intrusion of the riparian woodland by people, dogs, and feral cats as well as by urban noise and light pollution. The reproductive capacity of the agricultural area would be lost, and that of the riparian woodland vastly diminished. 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 thousands of 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) = 47,439 birds per year denied to California from the River Walk Specific Plan area, and 71,142 birds per year from the Sphere of Influence should the SOI be built out. The impact of these losses of avian productivity would be significant, but they are not considered in the DEIR. The DEIR needs to be revised, and then recirculated for another public review.
46 Table 3. Acreages of landscape elements in the River Walk Specific Plan area (SP) and in the extended Sphere of Influence (SI), and estimated numbers of avian nest sites based on total nest densities estimated elsewhere and adjusted by certain assumptions.

Landscape element
Acres
Nests/ac Source a
Nest sites

SP SOI SP SOI
Riparian, Riverine, Wetland 27.38 33.58 32.46 1, 2 889 1,090 Orchards, vineyards 922.31 1398.58 14.38 2 13,263 20,112 Annual grassland 8.89 8.89 2.92 2, 3 26 26
Rural residential b 16.1 21.11 10.63 c 2 342 449
Perennial field crops 4.48 42.69 2 2, 3, 4 9 85
Annual field crops 18.01 21.1 1 2, 3, 5 18 21
Total 14,547 21,783
a 1 = Young (1948), Yahner (1982), 2 = K. S. Smallwood unpublished data from 2023 study in Rancho Cordova, California, 3 = Noriko Smallwood unpublished data from 2023 study in annual grassland of the San Joaquin Wildlife Area, California, 4 = assumed lower nest density compared to annual grassland, 5 = assumed half the nest density of perennial field crops. b The DEIR categorizes rural residential homes as urban, but urban typifies higher densities in planned communities.
c I halved my urban edge estimate from the Rancho Cordova site to account for the portion of residential lots that was covered by the combination of lawn and impervious surfaces that were unsuitable for nesting.

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. However, the DEIR does not seriously address the question of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement. This lack of attention to wildlife movement in the region is especially surprising considering the research and planning effort that was undertaken to improve habitat connectivity in the area around the City of Riverbank about 15 years ago (Huber et al. 2010). With help from Riverbank’s community development director, James Hightower, as well as from California Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Transportation, a serious research and planning effort was directed toward noting the existing levels of connectivity and where and how improvements to connectivity should be prioritized. The study focused on four target species of wildlife (mule deer, bobcat, San Joaquin pocket mouse, western pond turtle), but also noted additional special-status species known to occur in the area. And the study encompassed the River Walk Specific Plan area, it noted this area’s contribution to the intactness of habitat of the two of the target species (San Joaquin pocket mouse and western pond turtle).

On the question of whether the proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, the DEIR reports that no documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites were identified by CNDDB. This finding is misleading. CNDDB is not a repository of records that would identify wildlife corridors. As noted earlier, CNDDB warns, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation 47 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.” Furthermore, CNDDB is not where one should go to find information about where wildlife movement might be concentrated. A better resource might be Biogeographic Information Observation System (BIOS: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios6/?bookmark=648). Another resource to visit would be Huber et al. (2010, 2011), which were developed in and around the City of Riverbank with the help of Riverbank’s community development director, James Hightower. In fact, the findings of Huber et al. (2010) are available in map form on the BIOS viewer (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3. Huber et al.’s (2010, 2011) study area (shaded circular area) including mapped riparian wildlife movement corridors (blue) and highest-outcome irreplaceability scores in a connectivity assessment directed to four target species including mule deer, bobcat, San Joaquin pocket mouse and western pond turtle (red polygons).
48 Figure 4. Closer view of the River Walk Specific Plan area, nearly all of which was assessed by Huber et al. (2010, 2011) to provide the highest irreplaceability scores and greatest connectivity to four target species including mule deer, bobcat, San Joaquin pocket mouse and western pond turtle (red polygons).

The DEIR cites the wrong source as evidence that the River Walk Specific Plan would have no significant impacts on wildlife movement in the region, and it fails to cite a strong source of evidence that it would have a highly significant impact on wildlife movement. Nor did McMurtry design a study or perform a program of observations capable of characterizing movement patterns or determining how and to what degrees wildlife use the Specific Plan area for movement. On the other hand, I observed multiple animal trails, on which were tracks of multiple species including mule deer, bobcat, striped skunk, raccoon, coyote and wild turkey. I observed Canada geese, mallards, wood ducks, double-crested cormorant and other species fly over the Specific Plan area.

I also observed many California scrub-jays, northern flickers and yellow-rumped warblers flying back and forth between the walnut and almond orchards and the riparian woodland along the River. The evidence is overwhelming that the River Walk 49 Specific Plan area is important to wildlife movement in the region. The DEIR needs to be revised, and then recirculated for another public review.

WILDLIFE DEPREDATION BY HOUSE CATS
The DEIR fails to consider impacts on wildlife from housecats. Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the River Walk Specific Plan area by residents of the proposed 2,435 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 animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The DEIR indicates there would be 2,435 new residential units within the River Walk Specific Plan area, which assuming 3.11 residents per housing unit in Stanislaus County (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ stanislauscountycalifornia/ PST040222), one can predict the project would add 7,573 residents. The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 3,332 new cats, which would kill 406,519 vertebrate wildlife per year. Many of the wildlife fatalities caused by house cats would be in reserves and riparian woodland.

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 highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the DEIR. A fair argument can be made for the need to revise the DEIR with more meaningful review of potential impacts to wildlife due to depredation by free-ranging house cats introduced by residents of the villages of the River Walk Specific Plan. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.

WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The DEIR fails to consider impacts on wildlife from window collision. The River Walk Specific Plan would add 2,435 residential units to open space that is currently habitat to many birds. These new residences would present glass windows to birds attempting to use an essential portion of their habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is 50 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 Glen Annie Site, and I saw many birds using the aerosphere while I surveyed the site. Bird-window collision mortality is a potentially significant impact that warrants analysis.

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 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 River Walk Specific Plan area 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 51 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, 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 52 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 within the River Walk Specific Plan area.

Bird-window impact prediction
I have 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 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 site of a proposed new project.

I found no information on the extent of glass windows on the proposed new residential units. I therefore relied on another source for estimating the extent of glass windows within the River Walk Specific Plan area. I have maintained a database of the extent of glass windows relative to the extents of floor space among other projects for which I have prepared expert testimony. For 25 recently proposed California residential projects, the ratio of m2 of windows to ft2 of floor space was 0.017 (95% CI: 0.0088‒

0.0253). Assuming 2,000 sf per residential unit, the 2,435 residential units anticipated in the River Walk Specific Plan would total 4,870,000 sf, which multiplied against the ratio reported above would predict 82,790 m2 (95% CI: 42,856‒123,211 m2). Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 82,790 m2 of glass within the River Walk Specific Plan area, I predict annual bird deaths of 6,052 (95% CI: 3,593‒ 8,511). I could update this prediction if I was to see more details about the River Walk Specific Plan. With or without more details, however, a bird-window collision mortality of this predicted magnitude would be highly significant. My analysis, updated or not, reveals that the impacts of bird-window collision mortality would be highly significant within the River Walk Specific Plan area. This impact is not considered in the DEIR. A fair argument can be made for the need to revise the DEIR with more meaningful review of potential impacts to wildlife due to collisions with windows.

ROAD COLLISION MORTALITY
The DEIR fails to consider impacts on wildlife from road collision mortality. Projectgenerated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the River Walk Specific Plan’s traffic to get to and from the villages within the River Walk Specific Plan area (Photos 42―44), including along roads far from the villages. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of 53 amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

Photo 42. 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 43. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.

Photo 44. 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 54 to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the Glen Annie Site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others),

52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California redlegged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). 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.

Animal-vehicle collision mortality prediction
The DEIR predicts 245,108 daily VMT, which project to a year would be 89,464,420 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 above-predicted annual VMT would predict 49,022 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. Even if the mortality is half this rate, it would be highly significant. Even if the mortality is a tenth of this rate, it would be highly significant.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic from and within the River Walk Specific Plan area would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Given the predicted level of traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project at the River Walk Specific Plan area would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. However, these impacts are not considered in the DEIR. A fair argument can be made for the need to revise the DEIR with more meaningful review of potential impacts to wildlife due to collision mortality caused by increased road traffic.
55 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Considering the size of the River Walk Specific Plan, the degree of habitat fragmentation that has already occurred in the area, and the magnitudes of predicted perpetual wildlife mortality that would be caused by the development of the River Walk Specific Plan, an analysis of the River Walk Specific Plan’s contributions to cumulative impacts was required in the DEIR. I predict the habitat loss caused the development of the River Walk Specific Plan would deny California of 47,439 birds per year, and build-out of the SOI would deny California of 71,142 birds per year, which combined with the loss of bird productivity caused by existing, approved and planned development in the region would be highly significant. I predict the development of the River Walk Specific Plan would contribute cumulatively to interference with wildlife movement in the region. I predict the development of the River Walk Specific Plan would contribute annual mortality of 6,052 (95% CI: 3,593‒8,511) birds due to collisions with windows, 406,519 vertebrate animals due to depredation by house cats, and 49,022 wild animals due to collisions with project-generated road traffic. These are devastatingly large numbers of direct impacts to wildlife just at the River Walk Specific Plan alone, but these numbers would add to the tolls at the other projects recently completed, underway or foreseeable.

According to the DEIR (p. 4.0-8), potential project-level impacts to biological resources would be mitigated through implementation of preconstruction surveys and some compensatory mitigation. The DEIR asserts that cumulative impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels as a result of the project-level mitigation measures it outlines. Thus, the DEIR implies that cumulative effects are simply residual impacts of incomplete mitigation of project-level impacts, and that no residual impacts would remain. 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 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 if project-level mitigation ia implemented, development projects cause cumulative impacts. 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 56 cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures.

A serious analysis of cumulative impacts is warranted. The DEIR does not provide a serious analysis. A fair argument can be made for the need to revise the DEIR to appropriately analyze potential cumulative impacts.

INADEQUATE MITIGATION
The mitigation measures in the DEIR are repeatedly composed of preconstruction surveys, which are an inadequate means to analyze the potential impacts of the project on wildlife. Prior to preconstruction surveys, and prior to the circulation of the DEIR, detection surveys should have been performed for each of the special-status species at issue. The mitigation plan of the DEIR bypasses detection surveys needed by the readers of the DEIR, and proposes preconstruction surveys in place of detection surveys, but preconstruction surveys cannot provide anywhere close to the same probabilities of detection of each of the species at issue. The DEIR’s mitigation measures for biological resources are deficient.

I also note that the periods of avoidance of construction to minimize impacts to specialstatus species, which are either proposed in the DEIR’s mitigation measures or by mitigation guidelines prepared by regulatory agencies, leaves only a short period of the year for construction. The period of the year that would minimize impacts to VELB, giant gartersnake, special-status species of bumble bees, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, other special-status species of birds, and bats would be 2 November to 31 January. The DEIR should be revised to specify that the period of construction must be limited to 2 November to 31 January to minimize impacts to biological resources.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Preconstruction survey within areas of disturbance of each village. Avoid VELB, or consult City and USFWS and minimally replace each occupied elderberry with 5 elderberries and 5 other trees and shrubs to be monitored over 5 years to achieve 80% success rate.

The village-by-village approach to performing preconstruction surveys is contrary to the recommended survey approach of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2017), who writes, “A more thorough analysis of nearby occurrences, surrounding habitat, and elderberry density is needed to fully address adverse impacts.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2017) includes many additional details of surveys for VELB, as well as for mitigation.

Detection surveys for VELB are needed prior to the circulation of the DEIR, because the public needs to know whether the River Walk Specific Plan area supports VELB, and to what extent do VELB occupy the area.

Also, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2017) recommends that all construction activities within 50 m of an elderberry shrub should be conducted outside March – July, which is the flight season of VELB. Details like this one need to be included in a revised DEIR. 57 Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 Special-status Species of Bumble Bee:

Preconstruction survey within 7 days of construction of each village, and colonies to be flagged and buffered by a qualified biologist and buffered area to be avoided March 1 through November 1.

What is needed first are detection surveys for the special-status species of bumble bees.

The public needs to know whether the River Walk Specific Plan area supports these species of bumble bees. Waiting until within 7 days of construction would be too late to search for these bumble bees with anything close to level of detection probability that one could achieve using a detection survey protocol. Waiting would also prevent the public from knowing whether these species occur and to what degrees the Specific Plan would cause impacts.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3 Western Pond Turtle: Preconstruction survey over aquatic environments and adjacent uplands at each village, and if found, relocation of turtles in consultation with CDFW. Also, construction crews will receive environmental awareness training and 15 mph speed limit.

I concur that environmental awareness training and a speed limit of 15 mph would be helpful to minimize impacts to individual pond turtles, but the benefits of these measures would be trivial relative to the permanent impacts of the Specific Plan on pond turtles.

What is needed first before preconstruction surveys are detection surveys for western pond turtles. Also needed first is consultation with CDFW to agree on important details such as how and to where western pond turtles would be transported if found during preconstruction surveys.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-4 Giant Gartersnake: Construction will occur during the active season May through October 1 [I think the City meant “will not occur”] within 200 feet of irritation ditch. construction crews will receive environmental awareness training. Preconstruction survey within 24 hours of construction. Construction monitoring. Low speed limits. Aquatic areas adjacent to construction will be fenced and avoided.

Giant gartersnakes are very difficult to detect. A survey within 24 hours of construction would likely detect few if any of giant gartersnakes that actually occur on the Specific Plan area. Detection surveys should be completed in support of a revised DEIR.

Even if preconstruction surveys detect any giant gartersnakes, capturing the snakes for relocation would be difficult and likely unsuccessful. Also, even if giant gartersnakes are captured and relocated, this measure would not prevent the permanent destruction of giant gartersnake habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-5 Burrowing Owl: Preconstruction take-avoidance surveys within 14 days of construction, followed by mitigation per CDFW (2012) of presence is detected. Compensatory mitigation for loss of foraging habitat. 58 The proposed compensatory mitigation is inappropriate. According to the DEIR, habitat would be protected of similar quality to that lost to the development, such as cropland for cropland, or grassland for grassland. Appropriate would be protecting lands known to provide habitat to burrowing owls, whether that land be used in crop production or it is grassland or something else. This is important because most cropland in California is no longer occupied by burrowing owls, which are rapidly disappearing from California (Miller 2024).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-6 Swainson’s hawk: Preconstruction take-avoidance surveys within 30 days of construction during nest season of 1 February to 31 August.

Buffers will be established and maintained by qualified biologist during construction.

Compensate for loss of foraging habitat.

The DEIR is unclear. It is unclear which ratio – 1:1 or 0.5:1 applies when within 1 mile of active nest. Otherwise, this measure would not prevent the permanent destruction of Swainson’s hawk habitat.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-7 Other Protected Birds: Preconstruction survey of any given site within 14 days of construction if construction begins 15 Feb through 31 Aug.

Qualified biologist will establish buffers around active nests, and adjusted as needed.

The avian breeding season recognized by the CDFW is now 1 February through 15 September. The DEIR should be revised accordingly.

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.

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 59 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.

As an example of how difficult it is to find the nests of lesser goldfinch, I had a pair nest at my house in spring 2023. I could see the adult lesser goldfinches collecting nest material and forage in my backyard, right out my office window. To aid my ongoing nest study at my study site, I needed to learn where my office-window lesser goldfinches were nesting. While they gathered nest material in my yard, I would exit my home through either my front or back door to track their flights back to their nest, but every time I did this, they flew around the opposite side of my house. I never once saw which tree they were nesting in, so I could not find their nest. It was not until August when a brown-headed cowbird chick pushed out one of the lesser goldfinch chicks did I find the nest site. The lesser goldfinch chick had fallen onto my driveway, so the nest was directly overhead. It still required about another 30 minutes to locate the actual nest structure, and then I could not photograph it due to the dense clusters of leaves and berries that surrounded it. I photographed it in late December after the tree defoliated (Photo 45).

Photo 45. Lesser goldfinch nest (center), visible only after the tree defoliated. 60 Searching the literature, I found only one scientifically sound estimate of lesser goldfinch nest density, thus indicating the difficulty that all wildlife ecologists and ornithologists have had with finding nest sites of this species. But this species is not alone in its skill at hiding nests from human observers. A preconstruction survey within 14 days of the commencement of construction would not ensure that all active bird nests are found and salvaged. This is most especially not going to happen on a property that is 116 acres in size and on which exists about 626 trees. Finding all of the active bird nests on the project site would require a phenomenal effort by many qualified biologists working together throughout the breeding season.

Even assuming all the nests could be found, the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After this survey year, California would be denied the production of birds from the Specific Plan area during 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 the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-8 Bats: Prior to grading of each village, perform preconstruction survey for maternity roosts, which if present and construction must happen during the pupping season of April 1 to July 31, perform the survey again [it seems], and a qualified biologist will establish buffers. If non-maternity roost if found, then eviction and exclusion will commence.

Detection surveys were needed prior to the public circulation of the DEIR, and certainly prior to preconstruction surveys. A preconstruction survey cannot achieve the same detection probability as can detection surveys.

The mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area to be applied to each species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and is unenforceable.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-9 Wetland Status of Agricultural Ditch: Determine whether non-jurisdictional and whether agricultural ditch exemption applies.

Determining the regulatory status of an agricultural ditch is not a legitimate mitigation measure, but rather an administrative step that must precede the public circulation of the DEIR. Furthermore, the location of the “ditch” is identified along an alignment that follows the base of the “riverbank” of the Stanislaus River, appears to be part of a historic meander and a floodplain feature, not excavated in uplands. This is supported by a series of images taken directly from the National Wetland Inventory, a publicly available US Fish and Wildlife Service website that provides maps and classifies wetland features. Those images show the floodplain, the channel crossing the property that feeds a document wetland classified as PFOA, Palustrine, Forested, Temporality Flooded (https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/classification-codes). This 61 classified wetland is readily visible in the aerial photos of the property, yet is never discussed in the DEIR. This wetland is likely to be impacted by property development and is a potential ecological hotspot for listed species. Yet the DEIR fails to include mitigation associated with project impacts, such as drainage increasing or decreasing as a result of construction and stormwater management, or impacts to wildlife species. (See Exhibit B for additional information on these features.) This wetland, which the DEIR refers to as a ditch, is visible from the River’s levee, from where I took several photos using a 500 mm lens. Photos 46 – 50 depict a mature riparian forest.

Photo 46. Riparian
woodland grows from
the southeastern reach
of what the DEIR
refers to as a ditch.
62 Photos 47 and 48. Riparian woodland is visible just beyond the orchard (top) and vineyard (bottom), and grows from what the DEIR refers to as a ditch. 63 Photo 49. Riparian woodland grows along what the DEIR refers to as a ditch.

Impact 3.7-7 Riparian Habitat: No mitigation is proposed for potential impacts to riparian forest because the DEIR wrongly asserts there would be no impacts.

Placing thousands of people and their pets next to the Stanislaus River would certainly bring impacts to the riparian woodland and other types of vegetation complexes between the levee and the River. Already, locals are shooting within the riparian zone, and there is a well-used motorcycle track. These types of activities in the riparian zone would increase with the addition of more than 7,500 people in the Specific Plan. From the new homes, house cats and dogs would enter the riparian zone to hunt wildlife. The riparian zone would also be infiltrated by light and noise pollution from the homes and human activities in the Specific Plan. It is not credible to claim that no impacts to the riparian woodland would be caused by the Specific Plan. It is inappropriate to claim that no mitigation is needed.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-10 San Joaquin County Multi-species HCP: Will participate with SJMSCP to mitigate for impacts of sewer line on covered species.

Due to grossly deficient implementation and due to poor performance of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP), the Specific Plan’s impacts to SJMSCP-covered species of wildlife should be mitigated outside the SJMSCP. The SJMSCP is currently unsuitable as a mitigation strategy for the River Walk Specific Plan.

There are four major problems with relying on the SJMSCP to mitigate the Specific Plan’s impacts to special-status species of wildlife: (1) Not all special-status species along the sewer line are covered by the SJMSCP; (2) Many non-covered species of birds are still protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBPA), which warrant CEQA review for potential impacts; (3) The SJMSCP requires protocol-level detection surveys at project sites for 64 covered species, but no such surveys have been performed along the sewer line of the Specific Plan; and, (4) Available evidence indicates that the premise is likely false that SJMSCP participation conserves covered species. I have reviewed the monitoring reports of the SJMSCP, and concluded that both survey objectives and conservation objectives have not been achieved for burrowing owls or Swainson’s hawks.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES
Construction Monitoring: Should the Specific Plan go forward, qualified biologists should be required to monitor construction impacts to wildlife. However, it should also be required that the monitor completes a report of the findings of construction monitoring. All cases of potential construction harm to wildlife should be reported to US Fish and Wildlife/California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and to the City, along with what was done to prevent or minimize or rectify injuries. All injuries and fatalities should be reported to the same parties, along with the disposition of any remains. The report be made available to the public.

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 Specific Plan. 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.

Pest Control: The Project should commit to no use of rodenticides and avicides. It should commit to no placement of poison bait stations outside the building.

Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the Project goes forward, it should 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.

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 65 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).

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 newly constructed buildings or homes for fatalities.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife undercrossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles and windows and by depredation attempts by house cats and dogs.

Landscaping: If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. 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., monarch butterfly. Around the 66 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. 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 consideration,
______________________
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. 67 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 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.

City of Riverbank. 2024. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the River Walk Specific Plan, SCH: 2021060098. Prepared by DeNovo Planning Group for City of Riverbank, California.

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. 68 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.

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.

Huber, P. R., F. M. Shilling, J. H. Thorne, S. E. Greco, and N. E. Roth. 2010. Safe Passages and the City of Riverbank: Wildlife Connectivity in the San Joaquin Valley, California. Report to Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York.

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

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

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 70 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.

Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.

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). 71 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.

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, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360. 72 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 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sacramento, California.

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.

Attachments: Exhibits A and B

EXHIBIT A
1 EXHIBIT A
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
 882 professional reports, including:
 93 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 763 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 95 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 Smallwood CV 2
Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.

Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.

Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.

Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.

Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.

Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed 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 Smallwood CV 3
conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.

Under Dr. Shu Geng’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 Smallwood CV 4
MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines 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 Smallwood CV 5
epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.

Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.

GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.

Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act 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 Smallwood CV 6
guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.

Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.

Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200-mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.

Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.

Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.

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

Bell, D. A., S. A. Snyder, J. E. DiDonato, and K. S. Smallwood. 2023. Conspecific carcass removal from a wind project study plot by a great horned owl (Bubo Virginanus). Journal of Raptor Research 57:489-492.

Kitano, M., K. S. Smallwood, and K. Fukaya. 2022. Bird carcass detection from integrated trials at multiple wind farms. Journal of Wildlife Management: In press.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood CV 7
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.

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
Smallwood CV 8
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.

Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.

Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.

Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718.

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

Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.

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

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

Smallwood, 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 CV 9
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and bat fatality rates at old-generation and repowered wind turbines in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1062-1071.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Wind power company compliance with mitigation plans in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Environmental & Energy Law Policy Journal 2(2):229-285.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander. 2008. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215-223.

Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Estimating wind turbine-caused bird mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2781-2791.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 Smallwood CV 10
Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and M. Zhang. 2001. Comparing pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) density in alfalfa stands to assess management and conservation goals in northern California.

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.

Smallwood, K. S. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography.

Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.

Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2000. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49.

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 Smallwood CV 11
carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.

Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97.

Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295.

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

Smallwood, K. S. 1996. 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 CV 12
Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259.

Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72.

Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order.

Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59.

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

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

Biological Conservation 62:149-159.

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

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.

Smallwood CV 13
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-turbineimpacts-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. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/36973.pdf 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. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/developing-methods-reduce-birdmortality-altamont-pass-wind-resource-area 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., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2023. Golden eagle roost sites based on telemetry data. Report to Salka Energy, San Diego, California. 29 pp.

Smallwood CV 14
Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.

Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). In Terry Surles and Edward Vine, Eds., Avian/Wind Statistical Peer Review Project.

Report to California Energy Commission. Contract No. 500-02-004. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Surles-2006.pdf 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 CV 15
Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.

Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society.

Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp.

Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects.

Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075.

Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075.

EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California.

Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural 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 Smallwood CV 16
Department, Phoenix.

Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix.

Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County)
Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in 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).

Smallwood CV 17
http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee).

Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

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 Smallwood CV 18
document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009.

Alameda County SRC document P-145.

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, 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 Smallwood CV 19
the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

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

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010.

Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collisionrelated mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp.

Smallwood, 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.

Smallwood CV 20
Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]).

April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget.

Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22.

Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007.

Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20.

Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19.

Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16.

Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15.

Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement.

Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5.

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. 223. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with third wind turbine layout of Sand Hill & Rooney Ranch Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind, Bethesda Maryland, and Salka, San Diego, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and D. A. Bell. 2022. Ground squirrel abundance and repeat raptor surveys at Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, 2006‒2019. Report to the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Science and Research Grant Program. 80 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022c. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with second wind turbine layout of Sand Hill and Rooney Ranch Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind LLC and Salka LLC.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022b. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with second wind turbine layout of Viracocha Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind LLC and Salka LLC.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Survey for Burrow Systems of San Joaquin Kangaroo Rat (Dipotomys Smallwood CV 21
nitratoides) at Natural Resource Management Area 5, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022a. 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. Baseline Map of California Ground Squirrel Burrow Systems on Marsh Creek Preserve. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

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 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 CV 22
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 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 CV 23
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California.

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

Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report to Pattern Energy.

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

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

Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch.

Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, 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 CV 24
Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009.

Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 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 CV 25
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, [email protected] . 34 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (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- Smallwood CV 26
04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.

Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp.

Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p.

Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp.

Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California.

Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California.

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 Smallwood CV 27
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 (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.

Smallwood CV 28
Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp.

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

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

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

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp.

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

Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Smallwood CV 29
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.

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 Smallwood CV 30
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 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.

Smallwood CV 31
Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages)
I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:
 Ashley Warehouse Environmental Checklist, Lathrop (2023; 38);  Replies on 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 12)  Science Research Park Expansion Project EIR Addendum, San Diego (2023; 40);  Rubio Village IS/MND, San Gabriel (2023; 14);
 Havana Investment Industrial Categorical Exemption, Jurupa Valley (2023; 22);  New Cal Centre EIR Addendum, Kern County (2023; 39);
 4
th & Hewitt Project DEIR, Los Angeles (2023; 19);
 4260 N Arch Drive Categorical Exemption, Los Angeles (2023; 27);  6700 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 29);  Replies to 6615 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 12);  6615 Pacific Coast Highway Site Plan Review, Long Beach (2023; 34);  Moonlight Apartments biological assessment, Encinitas (2023; 46);  Replies to Modera Melrose Mixed-use DEIR, Oceanside (2023; 11);  Modera Melrose Mixed-use DEIR, Oceanside (2023; 39);
 550 Piercy Road Industrial IS/MND, San Jose (2023; 28);  Living Spaces Development IS/MND, Fresno (2023; 28);
 FIND Food Bank Staff Report, Indio (2023; 19);
 Replies to Shadowbox Studios DEIR, Santa Clarita (2023; 35);  Shadowbox Studios DEIR, Santa Clarita (2023; 50);
 Tulare 40 Generation Facility IS/MND, Tulare County (2023; 20);  Garden Street Hotel Staff Report, Santa Barbara (2023; 19);  Replies to 975 Manhattan Apartments Discretionary Approval, Los Angeles (2023; 10);  975 Manhattan Apartments Discretionary Approval, Los Angeles (2023; 12);  6
7h
visit Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2023; 14);  Coachella Airport Business Park IS/MND, Coachella (2023; 31);  3400 Tecate Warehouse Staff Report, Camarillo (2023; 26);  Green Valley III Apartments DEIR, Fairfield (2023; 50);  Pacific Specific Plan DEIR, San Marcos (2023; 55);
 Amara Bay Mixed Use Staff Report, Chula Vista (2023; 46);  Greenlaw Partners Warehouse IS, Fresno (2023; 23);
 PODS Warehouse IS/MND, Desert Hot Springs (2023; 30);  6
th visit Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2023; 9);  Replies on Ormat Brawley Solar Project DEIR, Brawley (2023; 80);  One Hamilton as part of City of Mill Valley’s 2023-2031 Housing Element Update DSEIR (2023; 31);
 Second letter on Shinohara Project IS/MND, Chula Vista (2023; 22);  3890 Depot Road Project IS/MND, Hayward (2023; 33);
 Wellprofit Wellness Mixed-use project CEQA Exemption, Temecula (2023; 31);  Quail Meadows Apartments CEQA Exemption, Encinitas (2023; 55);  RCCB Fresno Distribution Center Notice of Exemption, Fresno (2022; 14); Smallwood CV 32
 Stoddard Wells Industrial Project IS/MND, City of Victorville (2022; 31);  16454 Adelanto Road Warehouse Distribution Facility Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Adelanto (2022; 17);
 Replies on Pure Water Project – Las Virgenes-Triunfo Joint Powers Authority FPEIR, Agoura (2022; 26);
 Desert Gateway MND Addendum, Desert Hot Springs (2022; 35);  Blue Oaks Commerce Center MND Addendum, City of Roseville (2022; 12);  Replies on Coachillin Amendment to Specific Plan, Desert Hot Springs (2022; 24);  Island View Mixed-Use CEQA Compliance Memo, City of Rancho Cucamonga (2022; 17);  Prairie Station Apartments IS/MND, City if Inglewood (2022; 32);  Golden Land Warehouse CEQA Exemption, City of Rialto (2022; 12);  South Juarez Street Design Review, Banning (2022; 17);  Replies on Pentair Expansion Industrial Warehouse FMND, Moorpark (2022; 13);  2
nd Replies on Greentree FEIR, Vacaville (2022; 16);
 Replies on Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage FEIR, Port of Hueneme (2022; 21);  National City-Bayfront, San Diego DEIR (2022; 56);
 Goshen Community Plan General Plan Amendment & Addendum (2022, 6);  Primrose and Adelanto warehouse Categorical Exemption, Adelanto (2022, 14);  TenTen Hollywood Categorical Exclusion (2022, 17);
 Waste to Hydrogen project IS/MND, Lancaster (2022, 36);  Las Virgenes-Triunfo Pure Water Project <Agoura Hills, (2022; 43);  Shinohara Project IS/MND, Chula Vista (2022; 30);
 Marlborough-Northgate Warehouse IS/MND, Riverside (2022; 33);  Meyers Ave, Warehouse IS/MND, Escondido IS/MND (2022; 27);  Northgate Industrial Park IS/MND, Sacramento (2022; 28);  Ramona-Indian Warehouse IS/MND, Perris (2022; 44);
 Norwalk Entertainment District EIR (2022; 29);
 Breeze Luxury Apartments IS/MND, Oceanside (2022; 40);  Paso Commons Golden Hills Commerce Center IS/MND, Paso Robles (2022; 35);  YS Industrial Park Application, Visalia (2022; 20);
 Pentair Expansion Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Moorpark (2022; 28);  Salvador Solar IS/MND, Riverside (2022; 27);
 Fresno General Plan Amendment 555 IS/MND (2022; 21);
 570 Crespi Drive IS/MND, Pacifica (2022; 40);
 Renaissance Ranch Commerce Center DEIR, Temescal Valley (2022; 53);  Replies on Glen Ivy Senior Living IS/MND, Temescal Valley (2022; 24);  Glen Ivy Senior Living IS/MND, Temescal Valley (2022; 46);  FedEx Distribution Warehouse IS, Lancaster (2022; 35);  Urban Villages EIR Addendum, San Marcos (2022; 32);
 NextEra San Ardos Solar IS/ND, San Ardo (2022; 20);
 Summit Avenue Warehouse IS/MND, Fontana (2022; 28);
 Gateway at the Oaks DEIR, Thousand Oaks (2022; 30);
 Primrose and Adelanto Warehouse CEQA Exemption, Adelanto (2022; 11);  Fore Apartments Staff Report, Oxnard (2022; 29);
Smallwood CV 33
 975 Manhattan Rd. discretionary approval, Los Angeles (2022; 12);  Coachillin DEIR, North Palm Springs (2022; 30);
 2740 W. Nielsen Ave Warehouse IS/MND, Fresno (2022; 25);  Golf Center Warehouse Staff Report, Indio (2022; 26);  Desert Peak Energy IS/MND, Palm Springs (2022; 26);
 Replies on Greentree FEIR, Vacaville (2022; 13);
 Greentree DEIR, Vacaville (2022; 31);
 Town Center DEIR, Laguna Niguel (2022; 16);
 2
nd Replies on Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project FEIR, San Jose (2022; 3);
 Corydon III CEQA Categorical Exemption, Lake Elsinore (2022; 11);  Park Edge Apartments IS/MND, Santa Maria (2022; 30);
 Replies on UCSF New Hospital FEIR at Parnassus Heights FEIR. San Francisco (2022; 13);  Replies on North Central Valley BESS Project IS/MND, Stockton (2022; 21);  9248 Holly Road Cannabis CEQA Exemption, Adelanto (2022; 12);  Replies on Amazing 34 Distribution Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2022; 10);  Amazing 34 Distribution Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2022; 28);  Replies on Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project FEIR, San Jose (2022; 5);
 Replies on Alviso Hotel Project IS/MND, San Jose (2022; 49);  Bussetto Foods IS/ND, Fresno (2022; 34);
 Spruce Ave Commerce Center, Rialto (2022;);
 5006 and 5010 Mission Boulevard Warehouse IS/MND, Montclair (2022; 18);  Conejo Summit IS/MND, Thousand Oaks (2022; 28);
 Sixth visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2022; 4);  TC NO. CAL. Development Warehousing and Distribution Facility Project DEIR, Stockton (2022; 33);
 Replies on Davidon Homes FEIR, Petaluma (2022; 49);
 Rural preservation and net conservation benefit coalition reply to post hearing briefs, Garnet Solar (2022; 24);
 Garnet Solar direct testimony, New York (2022; 17);
 Fifth visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2022; 11);  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); Smallwood CV 34
 Heritage Industrial Center Design Review, Chula Vista (2022; 13);  Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage DEIR, Port of Hueneme (2022; 31);  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; 39);  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);  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); Smallwood CV 35
 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);  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); Smallwood CV 36
 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);  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); Smallwood CV 37
 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);
 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); Smallwood CV 38
 Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);  Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26);  Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34);  1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);
 Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14);  SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21);  PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23);  Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);
 Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);
 Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14);  Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7);  Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36);  We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);
 Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);  Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9);  Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35);  Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);
 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);  The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);
 Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9);  Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22);  North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30);  South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);
 Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44);  Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15);  Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);
 LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);
 Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);
 South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);
 CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);
 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);
Smallwood CV 39
 Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12);  2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30);  At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);
 Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10);  Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);
 Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57);  750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14);  Replies to responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12);  San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);
 CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);
 Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18);  Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);
 North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11);  Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);
 Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23);  Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18);  Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13);  CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23);  Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24);  Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15);  800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18);  2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22);  Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15);  Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21);  Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15);  Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9);  Replies to responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13);  Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27);  Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48);  Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);
 The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);
 Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin County (2017; 5);
 Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5);  San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22);  Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12);  Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12);  MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12);  PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45);  Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);
 Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5);  Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16);  Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13); Smallwood CV 40
 Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);
 Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);
 Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14);  Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12);  CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12);  Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9);  City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7);  Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49);  Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25);  Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15);  Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016);  Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6);  Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5);  Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12);  Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);
 Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9);  Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18);  Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27);  Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14);  Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41);  Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38);  Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31);  Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6);  Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10);  White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9);  Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9);  Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6);  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); Smallwood CV 41
 Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18);  Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3);  Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23);  Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16);  Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9);  West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18);  Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);
 Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49);  Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19);  Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12);  Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31);  Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11);  Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);
 Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16);  Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13);  Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13);  Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6);  Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);
 Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);
 Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10);  Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);
 FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9);  Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6);  Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8);  Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23);  Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; );  Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9);  Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10);  Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp);  Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8);  North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62);  Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects 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); Smallwood CV 42
 Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9);  Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4);  Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9);  Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13);  Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16);  Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7);  Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6);  Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41);  Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17);  St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);
 Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10);  Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009; 9);
 SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);
 Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);
 Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9);  Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3);
 Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142);  Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2);  Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3);  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9);
 The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11);
 Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);
 SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);
 Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66);  Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20);  Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33);  Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15);  Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);
 Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37);  Replies to responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5);  North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);
 Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies); Smallwood CV 43
 Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18);  Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15);  Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);
 Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);
 Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);
 Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21);  Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10);  Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41);  UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23);  Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18);  Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6);  Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23);  Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9);  Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7);  Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3);  UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);
 Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22);  Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);
 California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20);  Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13);  UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001; 26);
 Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);
 Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5);  Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10);  Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000);  US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4);  California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11);
 Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);
 Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9).  California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);  Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);
 Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation);  Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8);  Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998);  Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28);  Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998);  San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10); Smallwood CV 44
Volunteer comments on other Environmental Review Documents:
 Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12);  Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);
 Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);
 Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.);  NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);
 Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);
 Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.);  Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.);  Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.);  Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);  Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);
 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);
 State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);  Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);
 Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);
 Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);
 NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45):
11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);
 Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997).

Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:
 Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society-- Western Section (2001);
 Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);
 Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);
 Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 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 Smallwood CV 45
House of Representatives.

Posters at Professional Meetings
Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.

Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005.

Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas.

Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.

Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station.

Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ.

Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society.

Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars
Smallwood, K.S. Ecology and recent population trend of burrowing owls in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society – Western Section Burrowing Owl Symposium, Riverside, California, 6 February 2023.

Smallwood, K.S. Renewable energy impacts to burrowing owls. The Wildlife Society – Western Section Burrowing Owl Symposium, Riverside, California, 7 February 2023.

Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in Vasco Caves.

Via Zoom to Audubon Society, 21 October 2021.

Smallwood CV 46
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.

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.

Smallwood CV 47
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.

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.

Smallwood CV 48
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.

Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004.

Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004.

Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework.

Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004.

Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004.

The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Smallwood CV 49
Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.

Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004.

Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003.

Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003.

Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.

Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003.

California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000.

Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass.

National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000.

Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.

The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999.

Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999.

Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999.

A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999.

Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998.
“No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997.

Smallwood CV 50
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 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.

Smallwood CV 51
Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C.

Davis, August 6, 1993.

Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis.

May 1993.

Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993.

Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990.

Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990.

Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988.

A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986.

The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985.

Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California.

Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings
 Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.
 Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.
 Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 2-5 May 2011.
 Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.
 Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Smallwood CV 52
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 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; Smallwood CV 53
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001;
KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour.

October, 2000;
KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997.

Reviews of Journal Papers (Scientific journals for whom I’ve provided peer review) Journal Journal
American Naturalist Journal of Animal Ecology
Journal of Wildlife Management Western North American Naturalist Auk Journal of Raptor Research
Biological Conservation National Renewable Energy Lab reports Canadian Journal of Zoology Oikos
Ecosystem Health The Prairie Naturalist
Environmental Conservation Restoration Ecology
Environmental Management Southwestern Naturalist
Functional Ecology The Wildlife Society--Western Section Trans.

Journal of Zoology (London) Proc. Int. Congress on Managing for Ecosystem Health Journal of Applied Ecology Transactions in GIS
Ecology Tropical Ecology
Wildlife Society Bulletin Peer J
Conservation Biology Biology Open
Western Wildlife PLOS One
Heliyon Global Ecology and Conservation
Wildlife Monographs Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Biological Control The Condor
Committees
• Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento 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.

Smallwood CV 54
Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects.

Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities.

Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas.

Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm.

Memberships in Professional Societies
The Wildlife Society
Raptor Research Foundation
Honors and Awards
Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987
J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978
CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981
National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982
National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978
Community Activities
District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007
Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07
Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005
Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004
Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002
Davis Visioning Group member
Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates

EXHIBIT B
Plate 1: Overview of Project Site
Plate 2: DEIR Failed to Identify Wetlands Marked as PFOA (Palustrine, forested, temporarily flooded) and Creek Shown with Dotted Blue Line in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Plate 3: Project is Proposed within the Historic Channel and Floodplain; Arrows Show Water Movement Direction Due to Topography.

ATTACHMENT 2

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER

MANAGEMENT OFFICE
715 P Street, 8th Floor | Sacramento, CA 95814 | P.O. Box 942836 | Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA | GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR | CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY January 18, 2024
Eric Thorburn
Oakdale Irrigation District
1205 East F Street
Oakdale CA 95361
[email protected]
RE: San Joaquin Valley – Modesto Subbasin - 2022 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Dear Eric Thorburn,
The Department of Water Resources (Department) has evaluated the groundwater sustainability plan (GSP or Plan) submitted for the San Joaquin Valley – Modesto Subbasin. The Department has determined that the Plan is “incomplete” pursuant to Section 355.2(e)(2) of the GSP Regulations.

The Department based its incomplete determination on recommendations from the Staff Report, included as an enclosure to the attached Statement of Findings, which describes that the Subbasin’s Plan does not satisfy the objectives of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) nor substantially comply with the GSP Regulations. The Staff Report also provides corrective actions which the Department recommends the Subbasin’s groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) review while determining how to address the deficiencies.

The Subbasin’s GSA has 180 days, the maximum allowed by the GSP Regulations, to address the identified deficiencies. Where addressing the deficiencies requires modification of the Plan, the GSA must adopt those modifications into the respective GSP and all applicable coordination agreement materials, or otherwise demonstrate that those modifications are part of the Plan before resubmitting it to the Department for evaluation no later than July 16, 2024. The Department understands that much work has occurred to advance sustainable groundwater management since the GSA submitted the GSP in January 2022. To the extent to which those efforts are related or responsive to the Department’s identified deficiencies, we encourage you to document that as part of your Plan resubmittal. The Department prepared a Frequently Asked Questions document to provide general information and guidance on the process of addressing deficiencies in an “incomplete” determination.

Department staff will work expeditiously to review the revised components of your Plan resubmittal. If the revisions sufficiently address the identified deficiencies, the Department will determine that the Plan is “approved”. In that scenario, Department staff will identify additional recommended corrective actions that the GSAs should address early in implementing the GSP (i.e., no later than the first required periodic evaluation).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 42906DC7-CCD0-4705-A0AC-9A8D376B16A3