Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025

agency is also encouraged to consider mitigation for significant impacts.

This interim guidance does not preclude, prevent, or exempt any other traffic safety review. This review should not include Level of Service (LOS), vehicular delay, or other traffic operations analyses unrelated to safety. If the review identifies potentially significant impacts to safety, justification must be explicitly provided to support and explain the specific safety concern.

In addition, mitigation strategies for these safety impacts should not be capacity-increasing. Other mitigation strategies should not degrade safety, mobility or accessibility for vulnerable road users.

Well planned, development projects located close to transit, bike and pedestrian facilities have proximity benefits to employment centers, services and goods; reduce vehicle travel demand on the entire transportation system; and generally, reduce crash exposure, leading to a reduction in crash occurrence and crash severity1. Smart mobility place types, as defined in “Smart Mobility 2010”, February 2010, are useful when considering potential impacts of a land use plan or project on traffic safety.

Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines for LDIGR Reviews District traffic safety staff should use Caltrans’ latest “Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines”, from the Division of Local Assistance’s Highway Safety Improvement Program webpage, to identify traffic safety impacts based on traffic safety investigations generated by network screening, or initiated by the district. Locations with safety impacts that may be significantly affected by the proposed project or plan, should be reviewed for additional or alternate traffic safety improvements to mitigate potential conflicts, or significant impacts to remedial measures.

Guidance on conducting an intergovernmental (Type IR) traffic safety review is provided below. Traffic investigation reports (TIRs) for intergovernmental reviews will use Type IR to distinguish the unique requirements for these reviews and the content required for the associated TIR. Type IR investigations should be stand- alone reviews of an identified location or locations as part of an intergovernmental review. If a prior traffic safety investigation has not been completed for the project site and surrounding area, then a new traffic safety review shall be conducted.

Locations that have completed traffic safety investigations generated by network screening, or initiated by the District, may be used to gain insight of needed safety improvements for Type IR investigations. These prior traffic safety investigations are not to be included in the documentation provided to the Division of Transportation Planning. If a Type IR traffic safety investigation has

been completed and additional reviews change the proposed traffic safety improvements, a new Type IR traffic safety investigation shall be initiated, and the proposed traffic safety improvements documented in the new Type IR review.

Generally, mitigated Negative Declaration submittals will not require a traffic safety review. Projects submitted as part of the Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation should have a traffic safety review completed within two weeks of receiving the Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation.

Type IR traffic safety reviews should largely focus on identifying locations where traffic safety improvements have already been identified or will be as part of an intergovernmental safety review of the project study area and should be based on the safety data outlined below.

Traffic safety reviews should be based on, but are not limited to, traffic safety investigations generated from the following:
• Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) Table C— “All” Crashes. The most recent report should be reviewed to determine locations in the study area with significantly higher concentrations of crashes that are statistically significant.
• TASAS Table C— “Wet” Crashes. The most recent report should be reviewed to determine locations in the study area with significantly higher concentrations of wet crashes.
• Monitoring Program Reports. The most recent reports for each monitoring program should be reviewed to determine if any of the identified locations fall within the study area.
• Type (MW): Wrong-Way Collision Monitoring Program
• Type (MX): Cross-Over Collision Monitoring Program
• Type (MR): Run-Off-Road Program
• Type (MP): Pedestrian Monitoring Program
• Type (B1 and B2): Bicycle Monitoring Program
• Systemic Review. Safety staff should review existing systemic safety programs covering the study area and consider those programs when developing comments. The FHWA Systemic Approach to Safety seeks
blanket improvements that can be implemented at locations throughout the road system, based on specific roadway features that are associated with a crash type (in advance of a location experiencing many-- or any-- crashes).
• Pedestrian Systemic Safety Improvement Program
• Wrong-Way Drivers Preventative Countermeasures Program • Any other available systemic safety analysis based on the latest

research or state and local practices.
• District-Initiated Traffic Safety Investigations. Investigations initiated by Districts outside the network screening process should be reviewed.

District traffic safety staff should consider the development’s potential influence on traffic safety on the (SHS) including, but not limited to, the following factors:
• Degradation of the walking and bicycling environment and experience.
• New pedestrian and bicyclist desire lines.
• Multimodal conflict points, especially at intersections and project access locations.
• Change in traffic composition, such as an increase in bicyclists or pedestrians, where features such as shoulders or sidewalks may not exist or are inconsistent with facility design (sidewalks, bicyclist and multi-user paths, multimodal roadways, etc.).
• Increased vehicular speeds.
• Transition between free flow and metered flow.

Freeway congestion-related crashes should not be the focus of any safety Type IR investigation. The intent of the Interim Safety Review is to provide an outline for when queuing should be reviewed for traffic safety impacts. A review does not necessitate the need for traffic safety mitigation, but is to evaluate if a significant safety impact based on speed differential may occur, and then the significance of that traffic safety impact by the project must be determined on a case by case basis.

The Interim Safety Review Guidance realizes the fluid nature of freeway exit ramp queuing, and the difficulty in developing a nexus to any one project.

Therefore, no methodology for fair share mitigation, as it relates to freeway exit ramp queuing is provided.

See Appendix A-Freeway Queuing Analysis for additional information based on the City of Los Angeles Interim Guidance for Freeway Safety Analysis.

Automobile congestion or delay itself does not constitute a significant environmental impact (Public Resources Code, §21099(b)(2)), and traffic safety should not be used as a proxy for road capacity.

When developing mitigation measures, avoid actions that would lead to induced VMT or would worsen conditions for vulnerable users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and micro-mobility users. It is not the intent of the traffic safety review to recommend increasing capacity on conventional highway segments. A traffic

safety review should be conducted at intersections where a project generated safety impact occurs. If project generated trips cause queuing to exceed turn pocket or turn lane storage lengths, mitigation may be proposed if a nexus can be made between the project and a safety impact. In these cases, typical suggested traffic safety mitigation may be the addition of turn pockets or lanes, lengthening the turn pocket or turn lane lengths, adding additional turning lanes for storage capacity when justified, and traffic signal modifications to accommodate turning movements. Pedestrian and bicyclist traffic safety mitigation should be proposed at intersections where a project will negatively impact these modes of travel.

District traffic safety staff should also review the site design for access management. Staff should determine site access meets applicable design standards, referencing the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the National Association of City Transportation Officials bicycle and pedestrian design guides, when applicable. Examples of access management include the following:

 Sight distance constraints caused by placement of a driveway.  Driveway or intersection spacing.
 Queuing onto roadways caused by project access design features such as driveway placement near ramp intersections or missing left turn pockets.  Multimodal conflict points caused by turning vehicles.  Pedestrian and bicycle connections from the state highway to the entrance(s) of the new land use that are incomplete.

District traffic safety staff recommendations will be submitted to the LDIGR contact for the project or plan review to be integrated with the other LDIGR comments. Traffic safety-related comments should classify locations for traffic safety improvements into two types:

1. General, which apply whether the proposed project or plan is implemented or not.

2. Project/plan specific, which will not apply unless the proposed project or plan is implemented.

District traffic safety staff should also identify and report any planned Caltrans improvements that would affect or otherwise modify these locations. Safety input will be integrated into the formal Caltrans LDIGR comments at each step in the CEQA process. The intergovernmental safety review is intended to be prepared early in the project review process to provide comments to the lead agency on the Environmental Impact Report Notice of Preparation.

District traffic safety staff will also be expected to review the published draft environmental document’s traffic safety impact(s) and provide comments

about the adequacy, or lack thereof, of the traffic safety impacts related to the SHS.

This guidance does not replace the Encroachment Permit process or requirements contained in the Caltrans Encroachment Permit Manual or the required approval of an Encroachment Permit or Permit Engineering Evaluation Report document.

District traffic safety Type IR reviews should be charged to 0000001062 along with the TIR number or 0000001063 along with the TIR number.

APPENDIX A–-FREEWAY QUEUING ANALYSIS
If the Project adds two or more car lengths to the ramp queue in the peak hour that will extend into the freeway mainline, then the location must be reviewed for traffic safety impacts which include a review for speed differential between the off‐ramp queue and the mainline of the freeway during the same peak hour.

The review for traffic safety impacts should be done to determine if traffic safety mitigation is necessary, not that it defaults to automatic traffic safety mitigation.

Traffic safety mitigation shall not be requested under conditions where queuing already exists on a freeway exit ramp. This includes:
• Conditions where freeway exit-ramp queuing currently spills back onto the mainline;
• Where queuing currently exceeds a freeway auxiliary lane length; or • Where freeway traffic volumes currently cause freeway exit ramp turning lanes to exceed capacity.

Traffic safety mitigation may be requested if freeway exit ramp queuing does not occur under the existing condition, but project-generated traffic volumes will cause a queue to exist onto the freeway mainline, creating a speed differential of 30 mph or greater. Speed differentials in congestion related rear-end collisions that are 30 mph or greater have shown the potential to increase severe injury and fatal injuries exponentially as the speed differential increases above the 30-mph speed differential

2. The speed differential should be determined by identifying the operating speed of the freeway mainline lanes during the peak hour that corresponds to the peak hour during which the ramp is expected to experience project‐related queue overflow. To determine the speed differential using a data-based approach, Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data should be used to identify freeway operating speed(s) during the peak hour being analyzed.

If reliable PeMS data are not available at the subject location(s), other sources of speed data including location‐based data collection services from available sources could be used. If no reliable data can be obtained to determine speed differentials, then no traffic safety impact mitigation shall be requested.

If the speed differential between the mainline lane speeds and the ramp traffic is below 30 mph, the project would be considered to cause a less‐than‐significant safety impact and no traffic safety impact mitigation shall be requested.

1 General Plan Guidelines and Technical Advisories, Appendix B: Transportation Safety 2 Current Understanding of the Effects of Congestion on Traffic Accidents, Angus Eugene Retallack and Bertram Ostendorf, 2019, and Relationships Between Crash Casualties and Crash Attributes, SAE International, 1997.

If the speed differential is 30 mph or more, then there is a potential safety impact.

To offset this potential condition, the traffic safety review should consider requesting the following preferred traffic safety impact mitigation:
• Transportation demand management program(s) to reduce the project’s trip generation, which may include increased transit access, commute trip reductions such as rideshare programs, shared mobility facilities (bicycle or vehicular), increased bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; • Investments to existing active transportation infrastructure, or transit system amenities (or expansion) to reduce the project’s trip generation; and/or
• Potential change(s) to the ramp terminal operations including, but not limited to lane reassignment, traffic signalization, signal phasing or timing modifications, turn lane extensions to accommodate the additional project traffic.

These traffic safety mitigations require Caltrans and the lead agency to coordinate early in the project development review process to discuss options, potential traffic safety mitigation, and agreement between Caltrans and the lead agency of the proposed traffic safety impact mitigation measure(s).

EXHIBIT 2

1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
Sacramento, CA 95814
16 July 2024

RE: Airport South Industrial Park and City Annexation DEIR

Dear Mr. Johnson,

Having been retained by ECOS, Sierra Club and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, I write to comment on potentially significant impacts to biological resources from the proposed 353.5-acre Airport South Industrial Park and eventual development of the 64-acre Parcel 8 and other non-participating parcels within the proposed 475-acre City Annexation Area. I understand the Airport South Industrial Park would add up to 5,204,500 square feet (sf) of industrial uses, and 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses. I comment on the analyses of impacts to biological resources in Bargas (2023) and the DEIR. In summary: (i) even though the non-participating parcels are included as part of the Project, the characterization of the existing environmental setting and analysis of potential impacts did not carry over to those parcels; (ii) the characterization of the existing environmental setting is otherwise deficient and misleading, and that significant impacts are not identified or analyzed; (iii) mitigation of Project impacts consists largely of preconstruction surveys that would do little to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife, and the Project would therefore interfere with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and the Metro Air Park HCP (MAPHCP); and (iv) the Project would eliminate the last remaining linkage of giant gartersnakes between the southern and northern NBHCP reserve lands, hence extirpating the giant gartersnake from the NBHCP reserve lands sound of the Project site.

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 post- graduate 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.

2 I provided expert testimony on the NBHCP from 1997 through 2000. I authored three papers in the scientific literature that partially relied upon my experience with the NBHCP (Smallwood et al. 1999; Smallwood 2000, 2001). Smallwood et al. (1999) criticized the scientific foundation of the NBHCP. Smallwood (2000) continued the criticism by crosswalking the decisions made in the NBHCP and the standards listed in the HCP Handbook. Smallwood (2001) provided an empirical basis for defining the minimum area in which a “population” of giant gartersnakes likely functions, and that was 580 acres, or 45% larger than the minimum habitat block required of the NBHCP.

I also performed road surveys for wildlife over a 35-year span, and which ended each time at the north end of the project site (Smallwood et al. 1996). Based on this survey, I performed use and availability analysis on many species to quantify selection of land cover types and agricultural practices in various types of crops. I also quantified trends in relative abundance. From this survey effort, I authored papers on Swainson’s hawk (Smallwood 1995), white-tailed kite (Erichsen et al. 1996), and yellow-billed magpies and loggerhead shrikes (Smallwood and Nakamoto 2009).

My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT

To prepare my testimony, I visited the site to complete a reconnaissance survey to sample the wildlife community. During my survey, I was accompanied by Noriko Smallwood, who is a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University, Los Angeles. Noriko’s CV is attached. On 14 May 2024, from 06:12 to 09:16 hours, we walked portions of the site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. We recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife we detected, including those whose members flew over the site or we saw 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 temperatures of 53–64° F. Most of the site is in agriculture, which is irrigated by canals and interspersed by sloughs, ditches, annual grassland and small stands of trees including willows and Fremont cottonwoods (Photos 1 and 2).

On the project site, we observed tricolored blackbirds (cover photo), Swainson’s hawks (Photo 3), great egrets (Photo 4), Bullock’s orioles and double-crested cormorants (Photos 5 and 6), mourning doves and black-crowned night-herons (Photos 7 and 8), mallards and northern mockingbirds (Photos 9 and 10), California scrub-jays and California quail (Photos 11 and 12), yellow warbler (Photo 13), western meadowlarks (Photo 14), Wilson’s warblers and tree swallows (Photos 15 and 16), western kingbirds and American crows (Photos 17 and 18), and western fence lizard (Photo 19), among other species (Table 1). Altogether in three hours and four minutes, we detected 48 species of vertebrate wildlife, including seven species with special status (Table 1).

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

Although we saw 48 species of vertebrate wildlife during our brief survey, I must point out that the species of wildlife we detected comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during our survey. Reconnaissance surveys, such as the one we completed at the project site, cannot support determinations of species’ absence, but they can confirm species’ presence. 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 our survey on the project site, the pattern in the data predicts that had we spent more time on the site, or had we help from more biologists, we would have detected many more species of vertebrate wildlife during the morning of 14 May 2024.

The pattern in our data also indicates that our rate of species detections at the project site exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval I estimated from 52 surveys at other project sites that she and I have surveyed in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley since 2019 (Figure 1). In other words, wildlife species richness at the project site exceeds the species richness she and I have found at other project sites in the region, despite the agricultural activities on the site.

The site supports many species of wildlife, including many more than we 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. We surveyed only in May, and therefore we were unlikely to see some of the species that would use the site in fall or winter.

4 Photo 1. Western king
amid a stand of
willows on the project
site, 14 May 2024.

Photo 2. Mallards on
one of the water
channels on the project
site, 14 May 2024.

Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.

5 Photo 3. Swainson’s hawk
on the project site, 14 May
2024. Photo by Shawn
Smallwood.

Photo 4. Great egret on the
project site, 14 May 2024.

6 Photo 5. Bullock’s oriole on the site, 14 May 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 6. Double-crested cormorants over the project site, 14 May 2024.

7 Photos 7 and 8. Mourning doves and black-crowned night-heron on the project site, 14 May 2024.

8 Photos 9 and 10. Mallard and northern mockingbird on the site, 14 May 2024.

9 Photos 11 and 12. California scrub-jay and California quail on the project site, 14 May 2024.

Photo 13. Yellow warbler on the project site, 14 May 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

10 Photo 14. Western meadowlark on the project site, 14 May 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

11 Photos 15 and 16.

Wilson’s warbler and
tree swallow on the
project site, 14 May
2024. Photos by Noriko
Smallwood.

12 Photo 17. Western kingbird on the project site, 14 May 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

13 Photo 18. American crow delivers food to a nest on the project site, 14 May 2024.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

14 Photo 19. Western fence lizard on the project site, 14 May 2024.

15 Photo 20. Tricolored blackbirds, a species listed as Threatened under California’s Endangered Species Act, fly as members of a larger flock of tricolored blackbirds across the Airport South Project site on 14 May 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

16 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko and I observed during 3.07 hours of survey on 14 May 2024.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus Non-native In canals
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis On stick pile, ruderal vegetation Canada goose Branta canadensis Flocks
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos In canals and flights across project site California quail Callipepla californica In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus Non-native
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Scattered throughout the site Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum TWL Flocks Great blue heron Ardea herodias In canals
Great egret Ardea alba In canals and flights across project site Green heron Butorides virescens Southeast corner of project site Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP,
NBHCP Northeast corner of project site
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Pairs
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Harassed common raven to defend breeding
territory
Common raven Corvus corax
Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor
Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Barn swallow Hirundo rustica
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
House wren Troglodytes aedon In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

17 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Carried nest material House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Carried nest material Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
American goldfinch Spinus tristis
Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus
California towhee Melozone crissalis Pair
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Pair
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC At two locations Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Many; carried nest material Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC,
SSC1, NBHCP Flocks
Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia BCC, SSC2 In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Wilson’s warbler Cardellina pusilla In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena In stand of willows and Fremont cottonwoods Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus
Mouse sp. Multiple; fed on grass
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Burrows
1 Listed as CT = California threatened, SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, SSC1 and SSC2 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1 and 2, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5), and NBHCP = covered by NBHCP.

18 Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
number of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and our
elapsed survey
time on 14 May
2024.

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, r2, 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 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
Model prediction
r2 = 0.99, loss = 99.3
95% CI of visual-
scan surveys 2019-2023
Actual count of species

19 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 12.9 species over the first 3.07 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (3.07 hours to match the number of hours we surveyed at the project site), which composed 22.6% of the total predicted species we would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 48 species we detected after our 3.07 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 22.6% 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, we would likely detect 48 0.226⁄ = 212 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site.

Assuming our ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 212 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 31 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

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 212 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 31 special- status 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 reconnaissance survey 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.

Known for certain is that the project site supports Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird, both species of which are listed as Threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. Bargas (2023) also reports the existence of occurrence records of the federally- and state-listed threatened giant gartersnake on the project site. It also 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)

20 supports yellow warbler, which is considered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to be a Species of Special Concern with priority level 2. Also certainly present are members of Bullock’s oriole, which is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Bird of Conservation Concern. Double-crested cormorants are present, as are species protected under California’s Birds of Prey statute. As my modeling suggests, many additional special-status species use the site, but Noriko and I just did not have the fortune to see them on the project site during our survey.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

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

In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.

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.

Compared to the hundreds of reports of other reconnaissance surveys at sites of proposed projects, Bargas (2023) is one of the better reports. Bargas (2023) reports its survey objectives, and methods including names of personnel, survey dates, start times, duration, and conditions. Bargas detected 51 species of vertebrate wildlife in 67.33 person-hours,1 Notwithstanding this time investment, the Bargas report remains inadequate.

Bargas (2023) surveyed on six dates, spanning October 2021 through March, April, May, and July 2022. This span of seasons and the personnel-time committed betters the survey effort I usually see. However, Noriko (who once was employed by Bargas, but not

1 I assumed the final survey lasted 1 hour and 50 minutes. The reported survey end time preceded the reported survey start time, leaving the reader to guess which time was incorrect. I assume the start time was 14:00 and the end time was 15:50, because the starting and ending temperatures correspond with the times these reported temperatures were measured at the Sacramento International Airport.

21 on this project) and I detected 48 species in only six person-hours. Our detections per unit time were >10 times higher than those of Bargas (2023), but to be fair, it is typical to achieve a higher detection rate during the earliest portion of a survey effort.

Nonetheless, our detection rate was much higher, which begs the question of why it was so much higher. One reason could be Bargas’s survey start times, which were later than they should have been had the objective been to see as many of the available species as possible. The earliest start time was 08:30, but most others were later, and one was not until 14:00 hours, and that was in mid-summer when at that time very few wild animals would be active and visible. Even the earliest start time was only half an hour earlier than our finish time on 14 May 2024 (We started at 06:12 hours). Wildlife activity is greatest in the early morning, declines through the day, and picks up again in the evening. To maximize wildlife species detection probabilities in reconnaissance surveys, biologists need to survey at the appropriate times of day.

Noriko and I also detected 18 species of wildlife that Bargas (2023) did not, and Bargas (2023) detected 21 species of wildlife that we did not. These differences in survey results are indicative of a survey effort that has yet to adequately represent the wildlife community of the project site. Our survey data bridged to my larger survey effort at a nearby research site (see Figure 2 and associated text) predicts 212 diurnal species use the site, but our survey results combined with those of Bargas (2023) total only 69 species. Our combined results include 11 special-status species, one of which that we added was highly significant, as it was tricolored blackbird. More surveys are needed if the DEIR is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting.

The characterization of the existing environmental setting needs to be accurate. This said, for projects where insufficient survey effort has failed to detect all of the species that occur at a project site, the impacts analysis should err on the side of caution.

Consistent with the precautionary principle in risk analysis, it is appropriate to assume that those species yet to be detected are present. Multiple conclusions of absence or of low occurrence likelihood have been improperly made outside the scope of inference of the reconnaissance surveys.

In the absence of a very large reconnaissance survey effort, or in the absence of protocol- level detection surveys, no species of wildlife known to occur in the area should be determined absent from the project site. Detection surveys are formulated to support absence determinations where the species was not detected despite the survey protocol having been followed. Reconnaissance surveys can support determinations of presence, but unless there are many of them, they cannot support determinations of absence.

Bargas (2023) did not complete any protocol-level detection surveys for wildlife.

Furthermore, Bargas (2023) did not access the non-participating parcels to survey for wildlife, but using binoculars, only scanned the non-participating parcels, including Parcel 8, from their boundaries with the Project site. Scanning from the boundary was inferior to on-site surveys. It disadvantaged survey personnel attempting to detect giant gartersnakes in or near the canal on the south side of Parcel 8, which ICF (2023: Figure 3-17) identifies as suitable for giant gartersnake. It disadvantaged survey personnel from attempting to detect many species of wildlife. The non-participating parcels, which are

22 part of the Project purportedly covered in the DEIR, had been fully accessible to Bargas, as there were no signs warning against trespass, and no fence. Bargas provides no explanation why its biologists did not to access the non-participating parcels including Parcel 8. Additionally, Bargas (2023: Table 4) neglects to report the vegetation complexes of the non-participating parcels, even though the vegetation complexes are the habitat elements Bargass (2023) purportedly sought to identify by scanning the non- participating parcels from their boundaries with the Project site. With respect to the Project addressed in the DEIR, Bargas’s (2023) survey effort remains incomplete.

Lastly, Bargas (2023) determines that, based in its surveys, 14 special-status species of plants are absent from the project site. These absence determinations are improper because Bargas did not meet all of the minimum standards of the CDFW (2018) guidelines for plant reconnaissance surveys. An important standard that was missed was the use of reference sites. Bargas (2023) reports no use of reference sites.

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).

According to Bargas (2023), the initial pool of special-status species considered for inclusion in its analysis of occurrence potential was drawn from queries of CNDDB occurrence records. However, it is unclear to what spatial extent the CNDDB queries were made. Bargas (2023:36) reports “The desktop review determined that 28 wildlife taxa with special status had been documented as occurring within the Regional Study Area.” 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.” Bargas (2023) and 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

23 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. Bargas’s (2023) analysis of special-status species occurrence likelihoods is fundamentally flawed.

Bargas’s (2023) analysis of the occurrence likelihood of Monarch reflects the bias in CNDDB I discuss above that results from CNDDB’s interest only in special-status species. Monarch’s status as a candidate threatened species was assigned only a few years ago, which means that few records of Monarch would appear in CNDDB. Bargas reports the nearest CNDDB record is 38 miles from the project site, which, due to the bias in CNDDB, is misleading. iNaturalist records include multiple records of Monarch within only a few miles of the project site.

In my assessment of our database review and our site visit, 103 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 have been documented on the project site (we confirmed 7 of these), and 26 (25%) have been documented in databases within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 24 (23%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 34 (33%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). More than half (63) of the special- status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site.

Therefore, the site supports multiple special-status species of wildlife, and likely supports many.

Bargas (2023) analyzes occurrence likelihoods of only 17 of the special-status species of wildlife in my Table 2. Of these 17 species, Bargas (2023) determines 5 do not occur, 6 have low likelihood to occur, and 1 has moderate likelihood to occur. Of the six species determined to have low to moderate likelihoods of occurrence, 2 have been documented on the project site, 2 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site, and 1 has been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site. Bargas’s (2023) determinations of occurrence likelihood poorly comport with the evidence from reconnaissance surveys and occurrence likelihood databases.

Bargas’s (2023) analyses of special-status species occurrence likelihoods are inaccurate and unreliable. Not only did Bargas misuse CNDDB for the purpose of screening out many special-status species from its analysis, but “the potential for bird species were further distinguished into those that may: 1) nest within or near the Biological Study Area; 2) forage within or near the Biological Study Area; and/or 3) occur on or near the Biological Study Area only as transients during migratory flights or other dispersal events.” The flaw here is the assumption that only nesting species should be analyzed for occurrence likelihood, as if the question of whether a species nests on site is the only question that applies to the analysis. In fact, transient visits and foraging can be just as important to a species’ breeding success as the location where it breeds. Breeding birds

24 must survive the non-breeding seasons, and they must be able to find forage on lands far beyond their nest sites, in order to successfully breed. Bargas (2023) also fails to extend its analyses of special-status species occurrence likelihoods to the non- participating parcels, which is part of the Project purportedly covered in the DEIR.

Another shortfall of the occurrence likelihood analysis is the apparent lack of use of eBird or iNaturalist, nor did Bargas appear to make any use of the NBHCP’s Biological Effectiveness Monitoring data. Bargas (2023) reports the nearest CNDDB record of cackling goose to have been 28 miles to the north, but I have seen cackling goose closer than 28 miles to the site, and eBird includes records within only a few miles from the project site.

Bargas (2023) assigns white-faced ibis a low likelihood of occurrence, partly due to the nearest CNDDB record being eight miles distant from the site. However, many records of white-faced ibis in the project area have been reported to eBird (Figure 3). One record is on the project site. Based on where I have recorded white-faced ibises in the Sacramento Valley, I see no reason why white-faced ibis would not make use of the project site.

Figure 3. eBird records (blue teardrops) of white-faced ibis at and around the project site.

Bargas (2023) assigns loggerhead shrike a low likelihood of occurrence, partly due to the nearest CNDDB record being 50 miles distant from the site. I have recorded loggerhead

25 shrikes along my road survey transect that ends at the north side of the project site, and I recorded loggerhead shrikes nesting this year in eastern Yolo County just next to the Yolo Causeway. Based on what I know of loggerhead shrikes from research experience (Smallwood and Smallwood 2021), I do not see any reason why loggerhead shrikes would have less than a high likelihood of occurrence. In fact, there are many eBird records of loggerhead shrikes in the area around the project site (Figure 4).

Bargas (2023) assigns Modesto song sparrow a low likelihood of occurrence because breeding habitat is reportedly “limited” at the project site. eBird includes many records of song sparrows in the area, including a sighting at the north end of Fisherman’s Lake on 3 July 2024. Song sparrows reside in the area, and as I pointed out earlier, song sparrows need not be breeding on a site for the site to be of great importance to breeding success. Bargas (2023) relies on an inappropriate standard for determining occurrence likelihood.

Figure 4. eBird records (blue teardrops) of loggerhead shrike at and around the project site.

26 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species we detected on 14 May 2024.

Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR
occurrence
likelihood
Data base
records,
Site visits
Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio FE In range Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT, NBHCP None In region Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi FE, NBHCP None In region Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT, NBHCP None In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Low Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC, NBHCP Present Nearby Giant gartersnake Thamnophis gigas FT, CT, NBHCP Present Nearby Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL, NBHCP Low Very close Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica SSC Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
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 Nearby
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Nearby
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region
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

27 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR
occurrence
likelihood
Data base
records,
Site visits
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC, BCC In region Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC Nearby
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL On site
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Red knot (Pacific) Calidris canutus BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, FP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC Nearby
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 Nearby
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL, NBHCP Low On site
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP High On site Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP,
WL
Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Present On site Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP, NBHCP Present On site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close

28 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR
occurrence
likelihood
Data base
records,
Site visits
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP Very close
Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Nearby
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP,
NBHCP
Moderate Very close
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 In region Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE None In region Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2, NBHCP Low Very close Yellow-billed magpie Pica nuttalli BCC On site
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT, NBHCP None Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Nearby
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC In region
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby
Modesto song sparrow Melospiza melodia mailliardi SSC3 Low In range

29 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR
occurrence
likelihood
Data base
records,
Site visits
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2, BCC In range Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1,
NBHCP
Low On site
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 On site
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In region
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG:M In range Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H), and NBHCP = covered by NBHCP. 2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list.

30 Bargas (2023) assigns tricolored blackbird a low likelihood of occurrence because breeding habitat is reportedly of low quality or absent from the project site (it is not clear which standard applies). However, Noriko and I saw and photographed tricolored blackbirds on the west-central portion of the project site. These tricolored blackbirds were there for a reason (which we did not determine) during the breeding season.

Regardless of the season, it is safe to assume that use of the site is ultimately important to tricolored blackbird breeding success.

Bargas (2023) assigns bank swallow no likelihood of occurrence because the nearest CNDDB record is 7.5 miles distant and there is no breeding habitat on the project site.

However, there are closer occurrence records in eBird, and there might be many more records except that bank swallow is one of the more difficult species of swallow to identify. Also, birds such as bank swallow require ample foraging habitat to succeed at breeding. Bargas (2023) hedges against someone reporting a record of bank swallows at the project site by asserting, “there is always a possibility of viewing this species in the area as a flyover.” I just need to point out that “flyover” is how swallows forage.

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 describe three types of impacts likely to result from the project, and which need to be analyzed in a revised DEIR.

BIRD-AIRCRAFT STRIKE HAZARD OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Bargas (2023:53) attempts to argue that leaving the project site undeveloped poses a greater risk of bird-aircraft strike hazard: “The current lack of development surrounding the Airport provides for substantial risk of bird strikes with departing or arriving aircraft, with such large species resident as several species of raptor (e.g., Red-tailed Hawk and Swainson’s Hawk) and numerous waterbirds (e.g., Double-crested Cormorant, Great Blue Heron, and Great Egret).” Bargas adds, “The Project site and Annexation Area [sic] are located within the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 10,000-foot separation area for wildlife attractants. Wildlife attractants are defined by the FAA5 as:

Constructed or natural areas— such as poorly drained locations, detention/retention ponds, roosting habitats on buildings, landscaping, odor- causing rotting organic matter (putrescible waste) disposal operations, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, wetlands, or some conservation-based land uses — can provide wildlife with ideal locations for feeding, loafing, reproduction, and escape.

The above conditions represent typical current conditions on the Project site and non- participating parcels (see Figure 1).” The DEIR carries this argument by also pointing out the hazard of leaving the project site undeveloped. However, this argument is

31 unsupported, and it is inconsistent with the Airport’s tolerance of the NBHCP’s acquisitions of reserve lands and reserve management.

Certainly, the above-quoted FAA 10,000-foot separation area for wildlife attractants is not a mandate to destroy all agricultural land and wildlife habitat within the 10,000-foot separation area. If it was such a mandate, then the Sacramento River would need to be rerouted to establish sufficient separation between it and the Airport, and the NBHCP reserve lands just north of the Airport would need to be hardscaped rather than enhance for wildlife.

Moreover, Neither Bargas (2023) nor the DEIR offers any evidence that birds fly higher over agricultural land than they do over developed land. In fact, birds might fly higher over developed land in order to avoid colliding with built structures. Rather than speculating that birds currently flying over the project site increase collision risk with aircraft flying into and out of the Airport, it would be more informative to measure avian flight heights in the area. The opportunity for experimental measurements of bird flight heights to understand the roles of land cover is ideal with the adjacency of large warehouses east of the Airport, NBHCP reserve lands north of the Airport, and agricultural land south of the Airport. Flight heights are measurable using visual-scan surveys and radar. I suggest measuring bird flight heights in an experimental setting to determine whether development of the project site would increase or decrease bird- aircraft strike hazard.

PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY REDUCED BY HABITAT LOSS

Development of the Airport South Industrial Park and the non-participating parcels within the Annexation Area would contribute substantially to habitat loss and fragmentation, which pose serious problems to wildlife in the region. Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity.

Habitat fragmentation multiplies the negative effects of habitat loss on the productive capacities of biological species (Smallwood 2015). 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, although Bargas uses fragmented habitat as an indicator of the occurrence likelihood of some species. Likewise, the loss of reproductive capacity is not discussed at all in the DEIR.

In the case of the giant gartersnake, the DEIR assumes that the giant gartersnake is present, which is appropriate, but it makes no attempt to estimate the number of giant gartersnakes that are present. This distinction is important because the DEIR claims that all giant gartersnake impacts are mitigated, but really only direct impacts are mitigated and no indirect impacts of habitat loss are mitigated. That is, the DEIR prescribes preconstruction surveys to avoid take of individual snakes, but prescribes nothing for the take of habitat nor the number of giant gartersnakes likely to reside within that habitat.

32 To identify the number of giant gartersnakes likely to reside in the habitat that is at issue, one would ideally survey intensively to count the snakes in the habitat. Otherwise, one can estimate the number of giant gartersnakes by drawing inferences about the average density estimated at sites where scientists did count the snakes to estimate numerical abundance. Density is the number of snakes counted divided by the area used to make the count. Density, however, is a complex metric that requires careful interpretation, because density relates inversely to the size of the areas used to make the density estimate (Figure 5). Animals of any given species, including giant gartersnake, aggregate. Therefore, as the study area increases in size, more of the study area includes unoccupied space outside the areas of aggregation. The density estimate predicted from the appropriate model Figure 5 needs to apply to the appropriate area on the project area, as not all of the project area is giant gartersnake habitat.

Figure 5. Density
is nearly inversely
proportional to the
size of the study
area used to make
the density
estimate for giant
gartersnake (red
circles) and other
species of garter
snake (blue circles).

Whereas the
regression slopes
are nearly
identical, the
intercepts differ,
probably due to
differences in body
mass. This graph is
from Smallwood
(2016).

Giant gartersnakes are known to aestivate within fossorial mammal burrows on upland areas. Hansen (1988) reported giant gartersnakes up to 250 m from aquatic foraging areas. Others have reported various maximum distances of giant gartersnake observations from water. Conservatively assuming upland habitat is within half the distance reported by Hansen (1988), I estimated the maximum extent of giant gartersnake habitat by multiplying a 125-m buffer against the length (m) of suitable Log10 Study area (ha)
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-1
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Giant gartersnake
Y = 2.5578 – 0.8511X
r2 = 0.58, P < 0.05
r2 = 0.82, P < 0.001
Y = 1.8438 – 0.8645X
Other gartersnake
Log10 Snakes/ha

33 canals around and within the project area. The result was 59 ha of habitat. Applying 59 ha of habitat to the appropriate model in Figure 5 predicts 121 giant gartersnakes on the project area (including Parcel 8 and other non-participating parcels). It is possible, indeed likely, that this number of snakes is not present at any given time, but the model predicts that the project area has the capacity to support 121 adult giant gartersnakes.

Yet to be estimated would be the productive capacity of the project area that would be lost as a result of habitat destruction. The productive capacity is the number of snakes produced annually, and which can populate the project area as well as vacant home ranges throughout those parts of the Natomas Basin to which young snakes can disperse. To estimate the loss in productive capacity would require estimates of the average generation time of giant gartersnakes as well as the average number of young per breeding snake that survives to adulthood. I am at the time of this writing unprepared to pursue these next steps; I only point out that they are feasible and appropriate for predicting the project’s impact.

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-wetland- woodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982). However, whereas these estimates might apply to portions of the Project site, they were acquired from far away. To acquire total nest densities closer to conditions in California, Noriko and I surveyed through the breeding seasons of 2023 and 2024, although the latter is ongoing. We surveyed in grasslands, woodlands, wetlands, and thickets of blackberry, elderberry, ornamentals and fig at multiple sites in east Yolo County, Rancho Cordova, Temecula, Murietta and San Jacinto Wildlife Area. I applied total nest density estimates from ground cover types in our studies that best matched the mapped ground cover types of the Airport South Industrial Park and non-participating parcels (Table 3). Because Bargas (2023) does not provide vegetation cover estimates for the non-participating parcels, I calculated them myself using Google Earth imagery. I estimate the Airport South Industrial Park and non-participating parcels supports 2,564 nest sites.

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. The reproductive capacity of the Airport South Industrial Park and non-participating parcels would be lost with the loss of nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North American bird species I asked Noriko Smallwood to review, then I predict the project would cost California 3,564 nest attempts/year.

The average number of fledglings per nest attempt in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9.

Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 10,335 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) = 11,361 birds per year denied to California from the build-out of the

34 Airport South Industrial Park and non-participating parcels. The impact of these losses of avian productivity would be significant, but they are not considered in the DEIR.

Table 3. Estimated numbers of nests by ground cover vegetation types on the Airport South Industrial Park and non-participating parcels.

Cover Acres
Nesting
density
No. of nests
(rounded) Source
Perennial rye grass 271.33 3.26 885 1, 2, 3
Upland mustards and star-thistle 123.83 7.32 906 3
Disturbed/developed 41.81 0.00 0 3
Open water 4.78 0.00 0 4
Row crop 4.58 2.00 9 4
Poison hemlock or fennel 16.28 3.26 53 5
Himalayan Blackberry, Rattlebox, Edible Fig
Riparian Scrub 5.79 21.25 123 6
Willow riparian and willow forest 7.18 80.00 574 3
Valley oak riparian and forest 0.43 19.89 9 7, 8, 9
Hardstem & California bullrush, cattail marsh 0.24 18.20 4 3 Total 476.25 2,564
1 Jorgenson et al. (2014), Grassland at Indian Cave State Park and Ponka State Park, Nebraska 2 Noriko Smallwood unpubl. data from San Jacinto Wildlife Area in 2023, and from two sites in Murietta in 2024
3 K. S. Smallwood 2024 unpubl. data, Grassland/wetland complex in eastern Yolo County 4 Best guess
5 Assumed same as grassland
6 K. S. Smallwood 2023 unpubl. data, shrub thickets between orchard and adjacent neighborhood, including blackberries, blue elderberry and fig, Rancho Cordova 7 Noriko Smallwood 2023 unpubl. data, riparian forest in Temecula 8 Noriko Smallwood 2024 unpubl. data, riparian forest in Murietta 9 K. S. Smallwood 2023 unpubl. data, American River riparian, Rancho Cordova

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT IN THE REGION

One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Throughout five paragraphs on wildlife movement, Bargas (2023) opines on the definition of wildlife movement corridor and on whether the project site currently accommodates movement of birds and terrestrial wildlife. Much of this text makes little sense to me, even though I have devoted considerable research focus on the wildlife movement corridor concept (Smallwood 2015). In the end, Bargas (2023:52) concludes, “The Biological Study Area and, by extension, the Annexation Area [sic], does not function as a movement corridor for terrestrial wildlife in general.” This conclusion, however, lacks foundation in evidence, and the “by extension” addition does not follow from any of the analysis in the five paragraphs devoted to the issue. Bargas provides no explanation why the conclusion directed to the Biological Study Area logically extends to the non-participating parcels.

35 Whether the site includes or is within a wildlife movement corridor is not the only consideration when it comes to the standard CEQA Checklist question of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. In fact, a site such as the project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project, due to its elimination of 475 acres of open space, would cut wildlife off from expansive stopover and staging opportunities in the project area, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. This impact would be significant, and as the project is currently proposed, it would be unmitigated.

The project could sever an existing movement corridor of giant gartersnake between the northern and southern NBHCP reserve lands. This particular interference with wildlife movement could result in the isolation and eventual extirpation of giant gartersnakes at Fisherman’s Lake and the southern block of NBHCP reserve lands (see more discussion on this below).

Bargas (2023) did not design a study or perform a program of observation capable of characterizing movement patterns or determining how and to what degrees wildlife use the project site for movement. Determining whether the site is important to wildlife movement is not stated as an objective of Bargas’s reconnaissance surveys. No methods are described of how Bargas might have assessed the site in the field for its role in wildlife movement in the region, and it appears that nothing was done at all to investigate wildlife movement other than to speculate reasons why the project site is not important to wildlife movement. Other than speculation, there is no analysis. And in fact, Noriko and I saw plenty of wildlife movement on and across the project site (see our photos earlier in this letter). The 69 species of wildlife detected on site by Bargas and ourselves would not have been on the project site had their members not been able to move to it. The project site is obviously important to wildlife movement in the region, and the project would obviously interfere with wildlife movement in the region.

ROAD COLLISION MORTALITY

The DEIR fails to consider impacts on wildlife from road collision mortality. Project- generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project-generated traffic (Photos 21―23), including along roads far from the villages. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

36 Photo 21. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road
crossings are usually successful, but too
often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by
Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 22. Mourning dove killed
by vehicle on a California road.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21
June 2020.

Photo 23. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.

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

37 et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project 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 red- legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Animal-vehicle collision mortality prediction

The DEIR predicts 16,828,967 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 9,221 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 Airport South Industrial Park and non-participating parcels 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 would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. However, these impacts are not considered in the DEIR.

INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING HCPs

The 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement states, “…prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development…” The DEIR (p. 4.4-47) carries Bargas’s (2023:62) assertion that “appropriate avoidance, minimization, or

38 mitigation measures that are consistent with the goals of the HCP are recommended for the Project.” However, it is not up to Bargas or the DEIR to determine that the DEIR’s proposed mitigation meets the requirements of the 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement. The Plan and Permits would need to be amended or revised, and the conservation strategy of the NBHCP re-evaluated. New ITPs would need to be issued.

That the Project should trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, and the need for a separate conservation strategy, are readily apparent in the DEIR’s proposed mitigation measures, and in the reporting of NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring. Most of the proposed mitigation measures consist of preconstruction surveys, and in the case of giant gartersnake, some best management practices are added, such as timing of construction, environmental awareness training, dewatering of canals prior to construction, work stoppages around the presence of giant gartersnakes, reporting of live or dead giant gartersnakes to USFWS, and management of fill, construction debris and plastics. Not consistent with the NBHCP, however, is the lack of compensatory mitigation. Also inconsistent is the fact that the NBHCP conservation strategy is not based on the assumption that development would exceed 17,500 acres within the Natomas Basin, and reserve lands might fall short of 8,750 acres.

Regarding giant gartersnake mitigation, the DEIR (p. 4.4-47) claims that “…as discussed under Impact 4.4-14, the proposed project would be subject to applicable mitigation fees for land acquisition, enhancement, and management and monitoring activities, which are assessed on new development within the Natomas Basin HCP permit area.” Most of the Project site is outside the NBHCP permit area. No compensatory mitigation is proposed for the Project, except for the possibility of payment of the HCP impact fee specific to parcels 5 and 8 should these parcels be built out (Parcel 8 is one of the non- participating parcels), and for the possibility that the City’s surplus NBHCP coverage be made available to the Project. According to the Implementation Annual Report, “As of December 31, 2023, the Conservancy held 260.91 acres of surplus approved mitigation land.” The surplus does not currently equal the acreage of the Project, nor is there any documented nexus between the potential conservation benefits of the surplus and potential impacts of the project. For the most part, the DEIR merely assumes that the mitigation is somehow baked into the NBHCP’s reserves.

The NBHCP’s conservation strategy was not formulated with the proposed Project in mind. There was no effects analysis inclusive of the Project when the NBHCP’s conservation strategy was planned out, nor does the DEIR provide the needed effects analysis inclusive of the Project and the NBHCP-planned development of 17,500 acres.

Moreover, the project would degrade the existing NBHCP reserves. This is important because giant gartersnake habitat is more than the water channel in which the species forages; it includes the upland area adjacent to the water channels where giant gartersnake hunts. Giant gartersnake habitat is a complex of adjacent upland and wetland environments. Not only would the project be built immediately adjacent to existing reserves (Central Rosa and East Rosa Tracts), which were acquired to meet the original conservation objectives of the NBHCP, but it would impede giant gartersnake movement along a water channel that was identified by ICF (2021: Figure 3-17) as

39 habitat. The project would nearly completely sever the movement corridors that the giant gartersnake has available to move between the northern and southern NBHCP reserves, including to Fisherman’s Lake.

Indeed, ICF (https://natomasbasin.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2004-ggs- monitoring-report.pdf: p. 3-21) posits, “The most significant corridors spanning the Basin from north to south are the primary drainages managed by Reclamation District 1000; these include the North Drainage Canal, East Drainage Canal, West Drainage Canal (including Fisherman’s Lake), and Main Drainage Canal, all of which the NBHCP has identified as most likely to remain during the permit term.” It is the West Drainage Canal that abuts the south side of the project site, and which connects Fisherman’s Lake and HCP reserve lands south of the project site to HCP reserve lands established to the north of the project site.

The NBHCP and Metro Air Park HCP provide for considerable flexibility in the allocation of giant gartersnake and Swainson’s hawk reserves. However, in United States District Judge David F. Levy’s ruling on National Wildlife Federation, et al., v. Gale Norton, Judge Levy stated his expectation that development within the Natomas Basin would not exceed 17,500 acres. The core requirements of the HCPs were (1) that 8,750 acres of preserves be established within the Natomas Basin, and (2), there be at least 2,500 contiguous acres in one preserve block connected by water to the remaining preserves in blocks of at least 400 acres each. According to the 2024 Implementation Report, in 2023 the Natomas Basin Conservancy finally achieved the compilation of preserves into one 2,500-acre block. However, it was expected that the efficacy of this 2,500-acre block would depend on the acquisition of 400-acre blocks, to and from which giant gartersnakes must be able to move via water channels and their adjacent uplands. Sever any of the linkages between reserve blocks, or make it impossible to acquire the targeted acreage of reserve lands in the interconnected 400-acre blocks as intended, and the NBHCP’s conservation strategy is unlikely to succeed.

By not contributing to the acquisition of 8,750 acres of reserves within the Natomas Basin, as required of the NBHCP and Metro Air Park HCP, the project would increase the likelihood that the existing HCPs would fail to achieve their primary mitigation objective. The project site itself would eliminate land that remains available for mitigation from within the Natomas Basin.

Additionally, the direct and indirect takings of giant gartersnake would impair the HCP’s conservation strategy for giant gartersnake. These takings would also impair the HCP’s conservation strategy for other HCP-covered species, because the HCPs treat the giant gartersnake and the Swainson’s hawk as umbrella species to the other HCP- covered species. Additional unplanned-for takings of these species could put these species in jeopardy. Putting these species in jeopardy would be contrary to the primary objective of the NBHCP, which according to ICF (2023), is “to create a system of reserves that contain both wetland and upland components that will support viable populations of Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), giant gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas), and other species covered under the Plan.”

40 The requirements of the 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement must be taken seriously. As revealed by Biological Effectiveness Monitoring, there is no room for additional mistakes in the NBHCP’s conservation strategy. The covered species given highest priority in the NBHCP – giant gartersnake and Swainson’s hawk – are showing signs of steady decline and of population stress, respectively. According to Biological Effectiveness Monitoring (ICF 2023: Figure 3-14), the probability of capture of giant gartersnakes in HCP reserves steadily declined from 2011 through 2022. Estimating a trend line through the mean probability of capture in Figure 3-14) reveals a 40% decline in only 11 years. Similarly, estimating a trend line to the mean number of monitored sites occupied by giant garter snake from 2011 through 2022 reveals a 43% decline in only 11 years (ICF 2023: Figure 3-15).2

Because ICF (2023: Figure 3-15) did not fit a trend line to the change in indicators of giant gartersnake abundance, I fit a linear regression model to their data, specifically to the mean number of sites occupied by giant gartersnakes in the Natomas Basin (Figure 6). A model fit to the data is useful for prediction, so long as the prediction is not made too far beyond the scope of inference of the model. In this case, the model predicts that based on its current trend, giant gartersnake will be extirpated from the Natomas Basin by the year 2040, or 13 years short of the end of its permit period. It is possible, the linear pattern of decline will change. The rate of decline might slow should conditions improve for giant gartersnakes in the Natomas Basin. Alternatively, the rate of decline might accelerate if the species’ habitat is lost, degraded or further fragmented by development projects such as the proposed project.

Based on the above, the DEIR’s simplistic assumption that compliance with NBHCP’s mitigation measures is adequate to mitigate the Project’s direct and indirect impacts to the giant gartersnake is in no way supported by any scientific understanding of the giant gartersnake or available information about the area and NBHCP.

According to Biological Effectiveness Monitoring (ICF 2023: Figure 4-7), the number of Swainson’s hawk nest sites increased steadily from 2001 through 2022, from 46 nest sites to 68 – a 48% increase. However, over the same period, the number of Swainson’s hawks fledged per successful nest declined steadily from an average of 1.79 in 1999 to

1.14 in 2022, which was a 36% decrease. These data are displayed along with a best-fit linear regression model in Figure 4-9 of ICF (2023). Projecting the linear regression model forward to 2028, the number of fledglings per successful nest is predicted to be half of what it was in 1999. According to the data, the average number of fledglings per successful nest four years from now will be only 50% of what it was 25 years ago, but nevertheless there will be more occupied territories (nest sites).

2 Examining the trend in relative abundance indicators since the start of monitoring in 2002 is not possible based on current reporting, because the metrics of abundance changed from density in 2002 - 2004 to capture probability and site occupancy in 2011-2022, and because no reports are posted for the years 2005 through 2010. Only use of a common metric would enable examination of the population trend of giant gartersnakes within the Natomas Basin from 2002 through the present.

41 Figure 6. Mean number of
sites occupied by giant
gartersnakes in the Natomas
Basin by year. Data source:

ICF (2023).

More revealing than the graphs in ICF (2023), the data collected via Biological Effectiveness Monitoring reveal an important functional relationship between Swainson’s hawk productivity and the number of successful nests within the Natomas Basin (Figure 7). Because the number of fledglings per successful nest varies much less interannually than does the number of successful nests, it is the latter that contributes most to the local Swainson’s hawk population. Even though the number of nest territories (nest sites) has increased through the period of monitoring (ICF 2023: Figure 4-7), the number of fledglings per nest site has not. This is because the annual number of successful nests relates negatively with the annual number of nests without success, especially after excluding data from the years 1999 and 2000, which are obvious outliers (Figure 8). (Data were likely collected using different methods in the outlier years.) Since the earliest years of the NBHCP, the annual number of nests without success have increased in the Natomas Basin, and have increased in variation between years (Figure 9). This increasing variation in the annual number of nests without success has resulted in increasingly greater variation in the annual number of successful nests and hence the annual variation in productivity.

Year
Mean no. of sites occupied by giant gartersnakes
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
25 30
35 40
45 50
55 60
Y = 3667.4 – 1.7974X
r2 = 0.69, SE = 1.99
P = 0.000464
Predicted year of extirpation = 2040

42 Figure 7. Annual number of
Swainson’s hawk young raised
to fledging regressed on the
annual number of successful
nests within the Natomas
Basin reveals a near-constant

1.42 fledglings per successful
nest. Data source: ICF (2023).

Figure 8. Annual number of Swainson’s hawk successful nests regressed on the annual number of nests without success within the Natomas Basin, including the years 1999 and 2000 (left graph) and excluding the years 1999 and 2000 (right graph).

Data source: ICF (2023).

Successful nests
Number of young reared to fledging
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
Y = 0.2457 + 1.4243X
r2 = 0.88, SE = 6.87
P < 0.00001
Number of nest sites without success
Successful nests
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 2001
2002
Number of nest sites without success
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 10
20 30
40 50
Successful nests
Y = 49.7941 – 0.8299X
r2 = 0.77, SE = 6.24
P < 0.00001

43 Figure 9. Annual number of
Swainson’s hawk nests without
success by year. Data source:

ICF (2023).

The increased annual number of Swainson’s hawk nest sites reflects well on the NBHCP, but the functional relationship between the annual number of successful nests and the annual number of nests without success, and the less-varying number of fledglings per successful nest, indicate that the productive capacity of the NBHCP reserve lands has been reached, and that the number of successful nests can be suppressed by overcrowding of Swainson’s hawks of breeding age within the Natomas Basin.

Swainson’s hawks maintain breeding territories, the integrity of which is more stable than is the availability of forage. In other words, even with surplus forage available on enhanced habitat, only so many breeding territories can be established within the available space to exploit the enhanced forage. With the number of breeding territories relatively fixed based on the available space, the more the number of nonbreeding adults crowded into that space, the fewer of the nest attempts will succeed because there will be a lesser share of forage to convert into fledglings.

I note, however, that Fleishman et al. (2016), after tracking telemetered Swainson’s hawks throughout the Natomas Basin, came to a different conclusion. Fleishman et al. (2016) hypothesized that the availability of suitable nest substrate is the primary limiting factor of the Swainson’s hawk population in the Natomas Basin. My argument against their hypothesis is that the number of occupied territories continued to increase since Fleishman et al. (2016) published their hypothesis, and this increase would serve to indicate there was more available nest substrate than Fleishman et al. realized, at least within the Natomas Basin. The trends in Figures 6–8 suggest to me that lands available for foraging is more limiting within the Natomas Basine, and dispersing Swainson’s hawks are finding fewer opportunities for breeding outside the Natomas Basin.

Number of nest sites without success
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024
Year
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 44

To more effectively conserve Swainson’s hawks in the Natomas Basin, a change to the conservation strategy of the NBHCP might be warranted. Needed is more habitat within and without the Natomas Basin. Young Swainson’s hawks need to be able to find breeding opportunities outside their natal areas. However, Swainson’s hawks are rapidly losing breeding habitat in San Joaquin County and Yolo County, much of it to development and much of it to agricultural conversions to nut orchards and vineyards.

Furthermore, changes to more intensive agricultural practices and increased efforts to poison ground squirrels are diminishing forage across large portions of the areas used by Swainson’s hawks for decades.

In addition to giant gartersnake, multiple species covered by the NBHCP are showing signs of decline. According to ICF (2023), species on the decline from 2005 through 2022 include northern harrier, loggerhead shrike and burrowing owl. The trend of Pacific pond turtle is unknown because counts of turtles combine individuals of Pacific pond turtles and red-eared slider. It is also difficult to determine the trends of white- faced ibis and tricolored blackbird, partly due to inconsistent trends between metrics and partly due to lack of reported confidence intervals. I did not find any monitoring results for bank swallow, cackling goose, western spadefoot, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or multiple other species.

Complicating interpretation of the trends of the other covered species was the change in field methods, which shifted the seasonal weightings of survey results averaged per year.

All tracts within NBHCP reserves had been surveyed once per month through 2017, but afterwards the tracts were surveyed twice per month during April through June, once per month during July and August, never more during September through November, and – but only on tracts with rice fields and wetlands – monthly during December through February (whether surveys were completed in March is unreported). Any species more detectable in spring would have been over-represented in the years following 2017 compared to the years 2005–2017. The same was true for any species partial to rice or wetlands in winter. For example, the graphed increases in white-faced ibis and tricolored blackbird were likely due to the change in field methods (see Figures 5-8 and 5-9 in ICF 2023).

Along with the other covered species, wildlife species not covered by the NBHCP were expected to benefit from the conservation of the two umbrella species – giant gartersnake and Swainson’s hawk. However, the effectiveness monitoring suggests declines of waterfowl as a group, neotropical migrants as a group, shorebirds as a group, and yellow-billed magpie. Again, without reported confidence intervals, some of the trends are difficult to ascertain. Overall, however, very little of the monitoring data indicates the NBHCP and MAPHCP are achieving their conservation objectives. The only covered species that has substantially benefitted from the mitigation measures of the NBHCP is Swainson’s hawk, and this species has benefitted to the maximum degree that it can unless and until more reserve land is acquired and converted to habitat within the Natomas Basin, or more breeding substrate and foraging habitat becomes av available in the Sacramento Valley outside the Natomas Basin.

45 Considering the foregoing, I concur with CDFW (4 April 2022 letter to Scott Johnson from Kelley Barker, California Department of Fish and Wildlife), where CDFW’s Kelley Barker writes “CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) states that EIRs must discuss any inconsistencies between projects and applicable plans (including habitat conservation plans/natural community conservation plans). Because the NBHCP and MAP HCP are currently in implementation, CDFW recommends that the EIR include a discussion of each Project alternative’s consistency with the NBHCP and MAP HCP and how the City will ensure that implementation of the Project alternatives do not impede the City’s ability to meet the NBHCP’s or MAP HCP’s permit conditions and biological goals and measurable objectives.” I entirely agree with Kelley Barker’s recommendations that “Particular focus in the EIR’s analysis should be directed to:

• Analysis of all NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species.
• Assessment of habitat types identified in the NBHCP and MAP HCP. • Analysis of aquatic migratory corridors for giant garter snake. • Identification of applicable NBHCP and MAP HCP avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures.
• Analysis of any impacts to land commitments of the NBHCP and MAP HCP. • Discussion of any inconsistencies between the Project and the NBHCP and MAP HCP.”

I further concur with Kelley Barker’s recommendations that “To identify any potential inconsistencies with the NBHCP and MAP HCP and provide special emphasis on rare or unique resources in compliance with CEQA, CDFW recommends that the EIR also address the following:

• Project related impacts from developing up to 408 acres of non-habitat related development (or otherwise potentially incompatible land use) on the available ecosystem resources available for NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species.

Persistence of the NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species, critical for the success of both plans, includes sustaining the appropriate levels of habitat (foraging, nesting, dispersal, cover, etc.) to support all Covered Species within the NBHCP and MAP HCP boundaries.
• Project related impacts from developing up to 408 acres of non-habitat related development (or otherwise potentially incompatible land use) adjacent to established or future reserve land managed under the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC).
• Reduction of available reserve land if the Project develops up to 408 acres for non- habitat uses. Note, reserve land described in the NBHCP and MAP HCP must meet both habitat value criteria and be sited with appropriate buffers and setbacks. • The potential for the Project to cause financial impacts to The Natomas Basin Conservancy and feepayers under the NBHCP and MAP HCP.”

CDFW’s recommendations are consistent with my comments on the need to analyze the project’s degree of consistency with the conservation strategy of the NBHCP and MAPHCP. However, I must reiterate that the requirement of the 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement that a project such as the proposed project triggers a

46 reevaluation of the original NBHCP’s Plan and Permits, and the need for a separate conservation strategy.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

The DEIR (p. 7-9) falsely argues that the No Project Alternative would cause more harm to the NBHCP than would the proposed project: “It should be noted that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Program (HCP) covers the area within Parcels 5 and 8 [i.e., the easternmost parcels]. As such, any project including development on Parcels 5 and 8 would be required to pay … $3,925,275.12 in HCP impact fees ... However, under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Natomas Basin HCP would not receive such funds nor open space land dedications, which would hinder the HCP’s ability to operate as compared to operations with the funds generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impact to the Natomas Basin HCP would be slightly greater under the No Project (No Build) Alternative.” This argument is based almost entirely on the possibility of the NBHCP receiving impact fees from parcels 5 and 8, and not at all on actual Project impacts to wildlife resulting from the whole of the Project. It also neglects the loss of the project site as an option for acquisition to achieve the conservation objectives of the NBHCP. This argument neglects the Project’s inconsistency with the requirements of the 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement, and hence the Project’s interference with the existing HCPs.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS

The DEIR (pp. 4.4-78 and 4.4-79) acknowledges that special-status species would lose habitat as a result of the project, but “the Natomas Basin HCP is specifically designed to address potential impacts to biological resources on a cumulative scale within the basin.

The Natomas Basin HCP is a multi-species conservation program adopted for the purposes of minimizing and mitigating the loss of habitat values and incidental take of Covered Species resulting from urban development, operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems, and various activities associated with the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s management of reserves established under the Natomas Basin HCP.” However, the Natomas Basin HCP did not plan for the development of the project site. Moreover, the project contributes nothing in terms of NBHCP reserve lands. The project would contribute substantial and highly significant cumulative effects to the NBHCP area, which, as I commented earlier, has undergone substantial declines of most of the NBHCP-covered species and many additional species that are not covered, including many special-status species.

According to the DEIR (p. 4.4-79), “as discussed under Impact 4.4-14, the Natomas Basin HCP is now about 20 years into its 50-year timeframe and has already successfully completed its largest land acquisition milestone by completing the 2,500- acre block requirement (see Table 4.4-3). Thus, by the end of the Natomas Basin HCP’s lifespan, the Natomas Basin Conservancy reserve system is anticipated to reach 8,750 acres, with one habitat block at least 2,500 acres in size and the remaining balance of reserve lands in habitat blocks of at least 400 acres in size.” As noted above, the project would contribute nothing to the NBHCP reserve system, and would instead sever a

47 major giant gartersnake corridor that currently connects the NBHCP’s southern reserves to its northern reserves. It would also remove its land base as candidate acreage to the NBHCP reserve system. All in all, this language of the DEIR indicates the project would attempt to get a free ride from the NBHCP’s conservation strategy – a strategy that has not yet worked to conserve most of the NBHCP’s covered species nor most of the other species that have been monitored for effectiveness.

According to the DEIR (p. 4.4-79), “Through compliance with applicable Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures, potential impacts to biological resources covered under the Natomas Basin HCP within the permit area are reduced to a less-than-significant level.” The DEIR further claims that it “provides a wide range of mitigation to minimize all potential adverse effects to habitat for special-status species that could occur as part of the proposed project.” But this is not the case, as the mitigation is mostly preconstruction surveys that do not even lead to any defined analysis or strategic planning. Preconstruction surveys cannot avoid the substantial reductions in productive capacity for many special-status species including for birds and for species of prey of Swainson’s hawks that would follow construction on the project site. Furthermore, even if the preconstruction surveys benefitted wildlife somehow, the DEIR falsely implies that cumulative impacts are really just residual impacts left over by inadequate mitigation of project-level impacts. This notion of residual impacts being the source of cumulative impacts is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative effects. Individually mitigated projects do not negate the significance of cumulative impacts. If they did, then CEQA would not require a cumulative effects analysis. To summarize, the DEIR presents no cumulative effects analysis as defined in two ways by CEQA.

The DEIR (p. 4.4-80), also claims the following: “For species not covered under the Natomas Basin HCP, such as northern harrier, white-tailed kite, song sparrow, and other nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and CFGC, mitigation measures are also included to address potential impacts. Such measures necessitate preconstruction surveys to identify active nests and further provisions should active nests be on-site or in areas immediately adjacent to the site.” However, there are no further meaningful provisions to preconstruction surveys for these species.

The DEIR on p. 4.4-80 adds, “potential impacts to riparian habitat or other Sensitive Natural Communities are addressed through mitigation requiring compliance with Section 1600 of the CFGC. Finally, potential impacts to protected wetlands are addressed through mitigation requiring compliance with Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA.” However, compliance with regulatory statutes is not legitimate mitigation.

The DEIR on p. 4.4-80 claims, “Overall, with incorporation of the mitigation measures set forth herein, potential impacts to biological resources that could occur as a result of the proposed project would all be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to biological resources protected under CEQA.” However, I have encountered these types of claims made for previous project proposals with which I developed expert testimony.

Noriko Smallwood and I decided to test whether this type of claim is true. To measure

48 the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by development projects, Noriko and I revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents, and where the project’s environmental review documents claimed that the wildlife at issue would experience less-than-significant impacts due to the proposed mitigation measures (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023).

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

The DEIR further claims “With respect to potential impacts that could occur to biological resources as part of development of buildout of the General Plan policy area including the Northlake subdivision or areas within the unincorporated Sacramento County portions of the Natomas Basin, such as the Metro Air Park (which is subject to its own Metro Air Park HCP), the Upper Westside Specific Plan, the Grandpark Specific Plan, the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan, and the Elkhorn Boulevard Extension Project, such areas in the cumulative setting would be subject to applicable policies, regulations, and standards set forth at the federal, State, and local level, including preconstruction surveys, compliance with CFGC Section 1600, and Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA. Therefore, all potential impacts that could occur through development in the cumulative setting would be reduced through applicable regulatory requirements.” However, according to CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), “a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.” And “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The specific requirements cited in the DEIR consist of preconstruction surveys.

Preconstruction surveys might avoid take of a few specific individual animals found to be in harm’s way just prior to construction, but they do nothing to avoid or minimize the loss of productive capacity of each species at issue. Preconstruction surveys do not mitigate cumulative impacts.

49 The DEIR (p. 4.4-82) asserts that “In addition, the courts have explicitly rejected the notion that a finding of significance is required simply because a proposed project would result in a net loss of habitat. “[M]itigation need not account for every square foot of impacted habitat to be adequate. What matters is that the unmitigated impact is no longer significant,” (Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County [2013] 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 528, quoting Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach [2012] 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1233).” In the case of this project, the DEIR offers no commitment to provision of compensatory mitigation. The “every square foot of impacted habitat” argument is out of place. The project would take up to 475 acres of wildlife habitat while protecting 0 acres as mitigation. As the DEIR is written, the project’s impacts to wildlife would be nearly entirely unmitigated.

MITIGATION MEASURES

As noted earlier, most of the mitigation measures consist of preconstruction surveys that are inadequate to address impacts associated with habitat loss and fragmentation.

Preconstruction surveys are proposed for plant species covered by the NBHCP, giant gartersnake, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, nesting raptors other than Swainson’s hawk, and nesting songbirds. In all cases, the preconstruction surveys are characterized as focused surveys, but nowhere does the DEIR assure that these focused surveys would be implemented specific to each species and taxonomic group – that the surveys would be truly focused.

In the case of Swainson’s hawk, the DEIR proposes compensatory mitigation either to the extent of the City’s surplus HCP coverage applied to the Project area outside the NBHCP permit area, or according to CDFW’s mitigation guidelines.

In the case of burrowing owls, the DEIR explains that if burrowing owls are detected during the preconstruction survey, additional measures would be implemented, such as relocation of burrowing owls and offsite construction of burrowing owl nest boxes. The additional measures that are described are outdated. CDFW (2012) warns that relocation can be interpreted as take. Nest boxes constructed in the absence of ground squirrels, or in the presence of ground squirrels but in the absence of routine maintenance of nest boxes, are nearly always abandoned (Smallwood and Morrison 2018). By implementing measures consistent with those of the NBHCP, the City of Sacramento is attempting to rely on outdated, ineffective measures rather than the more effective current recommendations of CDFW (2012). Most of the Project is located outside the NBHCP permit area, so NBHCP mitigation measures of 25 years ago should not be implemented instead of the improved measures of today. This is particularly the case with burrowing owls, which have declined rapidly statewide, resulting in a listing petition (Miller 2024).

Pacific pond turtle mitigation consists of dewatering of the canals, coincident with giant gartersnake mitigation. However, dewatering of the canals would force giant gartersnakes and Pacific pond turtle to seek refuge in the upland areas where construction would kill them. Upon dewatering, where are members of these species expected to go?

50 The DEIR prescribes no mitigation to potential impacts to Monarch, Aleutian cackling goose, white-faced ibis, and tricolored blackbird. Impacts to these species, which would be significant, would be unmitigated.

In the case of interference with wildlife movement, the DEIR relies entirely on giant gartersnake mitigation. The DEIR implicitly but improperly assumes that the factors affecting movement of all special-status species of wildlife are the same as they are for giant gartersnake. The DEIR needs to be withdrawn in order to analyze whether and how the project would interfere with each special-status species of wildlife.

In the case of cumulative loss of habitat for special-status species, the DEIR relies on the mitigation measures summarized above. However, preconstruction surveys cannot avoid or minimize the cumulative loss of habitat.

Thank you for your consideration,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

LITERATURE CITED

Bargas. 2023. DRAFT Biological Resources Assessment, Airport South Industrial Park Sacramento County, California. Prepared for Raney Planning & Management, Inc., Sacramento, California.

Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/

10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

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

Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996.

White-tailed 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.

Fleishman, E, J. Anderson, B. G. Dickson, D. Krolick, J. A. Estep, R. L. Anderson, C. S.

Elphick, D. S. Dobkin, and D. A. Bell. 2016. Space Use by Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni ) in the Natomas Basin, California. Collabra, 2(1): 5, pp. 1–12, DOI:

51 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/collabra.35

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.

Hansen, G.E. 1988. Review of the status of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi gigas) and its supporting habitat during 1986-1987. Final report for California Department of Fish and Game Contract C-2060. 31pp.

ICF. 2023. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, California.

Jorgensen, J. G., L. R. Dinan, M. A. Brogie, W. R. Silcock, J. Rink, C. Klaphake, and G.

Steinauer. 2014. Breeding bird diversity, abundance and density at Indian Cave and Ponca State Parks, Nebraska 2012-2014. Nongame Bird Program of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Lincoln, NE.

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.

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.

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C.

Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019).

Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014.

Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383

Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of

52 immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California.

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. 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. 2001. Linking habitat restoration to meaningful units of animal demography. Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.

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. 2016. Comments on Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015. Comments submitted to Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

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

Smallwood, K. S., 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.

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

53 Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.

Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump.

Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626.

Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.

Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.

Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist

Expertise

• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;

• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys;

• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.

Education

Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.

M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.

B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 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 Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV

2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.

Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.

Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.

Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.

Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV

3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

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

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.

Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.

Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.

Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects

Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.

Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances.

Smallwood CV

4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.

Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.

Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.

Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.

Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.

Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.

Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).

Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.

Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.

Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.

Smallwood CV

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

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

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

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

Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.

Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.

Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.

Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies.

Smallwood CV

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peer Reviewed Publications

Smallwood, K. S., 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, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding density and collision mortality of Smallwood CV

7 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

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 Smallwood CV

8 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, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and bat fatality rates at old-generation and repowered Smallwood CV

9 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 agro- ecological solution to water shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355.

Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001.

Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood CV

10 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 carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491.

Smallwood CV

11 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. White- tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M.

Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178.

Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296.

Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259

Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation Smallwood CV

12 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/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf

Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500- 2016-066

Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M.

Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Smallwood CV

13 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-turbine- impacts-burrowing-owls-other-raptors

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065

Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted but not published. Sacramento, California.

Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 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-bird- mortality-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, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Smallwood CV

14 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, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management.

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

Smallwood CV

15 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 Department, Phoenix.

Smallwood CV

16 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). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf

Smallwood CV

17 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 document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood CV

18 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 the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California.

Smallwood CV

19 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. 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 collision- related 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.

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 CV

20 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 nitratoides) at Natural Resource Management Area 5, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy.

Smallwood CV

21 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 Comparis on of Wind Turbine Collisi on H azard Mode l Performance: On e-year Po st-construction As sessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 201 8. Siting wind turbines t o minimize raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass W ind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Smallwood, K. S., an d L. Neher. 201 8. Siting wind tu rbines t o minimize ra ptor collisions at Rooney Ranch Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Res ource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area.

Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District.

Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir.

Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District.

Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological Diversity. 28 pp

Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, Smallwood CV

22 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, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Smallwood CV

23 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, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Smallwood CV

24 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 Yellow- billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Smallwood CV

25 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- 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 CV

26 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 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 Smallwood CV

27 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 Jefferson- Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp.

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

Smallwood CV

28 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 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp.

Smallwood CV

29 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 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, Smallwood CV

30 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.

Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages)

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

31 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);
 4th & 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);  67h 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);  6th 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);  Stoddard Wells Industrial Project IS/MND, City of Victorville (2022; 31);  16454 Adelanto Road Warehouse Distribution Facility Class 32 Categorical Exemption, Smallwood CV

32 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);  2nd 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);
 975 Manhattan Rd. discretionary approval, Los Angeles (2022; 12);  Coachillin DEIR, North Palm Springs (2022; 30);
Smallwood CV

33  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);
 2nd 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);  Heritage Industrial Center Design Review, Chula Vista (2022; 13);  Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage DEIR, Port of Hueneme (2022; 31); Smallwood CV

34  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);  2nd 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);
 2nd Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 9);  Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 3);  Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 28);  DHS 109 Industrial Park IS/MND, Desert Hot Springs (2021; 33); Smallwood CV

35  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);  Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20);  Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23); Smallwood CV

36  Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26);  Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19);  Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22);  Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21);  Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24);  Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27);  2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4);  1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);
 Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);
 11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17);  Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);
 Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64);  Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12);  Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28);  Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted;  Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);
 3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19);  Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8);  2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25);  Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4);  2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8);  Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3);  Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16);  Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5);  Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24);
 AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);
 Replies to responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse, 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);  2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34);  Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30);  Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16);  Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14); Smallwood CV

37  Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);
 Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17);  1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28);  1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:
 Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46);  Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);
 Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);
 Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24);  Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18);  The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19);  Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);
 Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);
 27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);
 2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11);  Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13);  Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18);  East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22);  Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);
 555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);
 Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27);  1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19);  Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27);  Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26);
 Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);
 Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);
 Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13);  Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22);  Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9);  Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12);  ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9);  Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14);  Replies to responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19);  PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13);
 Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);
 Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19)  World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19);  Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12);  West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);
 Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11);  Replies to responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10);  Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);  Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26); Smallwood CV

38  Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34);  1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);
 Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14);  SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21);  PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23);  Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);
 Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);
 Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14);  Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7);  Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36);  We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);
 Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);  Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9);  Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35);  Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);
 Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);  The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);
 Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9);  Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22);  North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30);  South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);
 Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44);  Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15);  Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);
 LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30);
 Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);
 South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);
 CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);
 2nd replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11);  Replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7);  Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12);  Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21);  Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22);  Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);
 Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21);  2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12);  Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);
 City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);
 Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);
 Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);
 IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);
 Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);
 Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12);  2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30); Smallwood CV

39  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);  Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);
 Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5); Smallwood CV

40  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);  Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18);  Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3); Smallwood CV

41  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);  Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9);  Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4); Smallwood CV

42  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);  Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18);  Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15); Smallwood CV

43  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);

Volunteer comments on other Environmental Review Documents:

Smallwood CV

44  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 House of Representatives.

Smallwood CV

45 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.

Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in the Altamont. Golden Gate Audubon, 21 October 2020.

Smallwood CV

46 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.

Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind Smallwood CV

47 power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013.

Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012.

Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012.

Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011

Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011.

Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.

Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011.

Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010.

Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities.

California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010.

Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007.

Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006.

Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006.

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

California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006.

Smallwood CV

48 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, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004.

Smallwood CV

49 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.

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 Smallwood CV

50 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.

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

Smallwood CV

51 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 Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.

Smallwood CV

52  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. Op- Ed 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;

KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001;

Smallwood CV

53 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.

Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Smallwood CV

54 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 3

José C. Henríquez, Executive Officer; Diane Thorpe, Clerk of the Commission www.saclafco.org
October 20, 2021
Rod Stinson, Vice President
Raney Planning & Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
SUBJECT: Scope of Work – P roposal to Prepare an E nvironmental Impact Report (Coordinated Environmental Review Process for the Airport South Industrial Project)
Dear Mr. Stinson,
LAFCo, as joint lead agency with the City of Sacramento, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the CEQA consultant’s draft scope of work on the E nvironmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Airport South Industrial Project. Our comments pertain to two major topics regarding the scope and content of the EIR. The first set of comments address es the submitted proposal itself; the second set pertains to standards that Sacramento LAFCo expects to be addressed in all environmental documents prepared on the Commission’s behalf , whether as a lead or a responsible agency. This second set of concerns is guided by LAFCo’s statutory authority and guiding regulations, and Sacramento LAFCo’s adopted Policies, Standards and Procedures.

Comments on the Proposal Submitted by Raney Planning & Management, Inc. dated September 21, 2021

have final oversight, review, and approval authority of the content of the EIR as they each relate to the Sphere of Influence Amendment. Raney will ensure the EIR adequately and accurately addresses all environmental issues associated with LAFCo proceedings. The EIR will include a separate discussion of the Sphere of Influence Amendment, as appropriate, within each chapter of the EIR.

This paragraph should also state that LAFCo intends to rely upon the environmental conclusions and findings of the EIR as it was certified by LAFCo, at the time of SOIA consideration by the Commission, in its consideration of the annexation and any detachments at the culmination of the LAFCo/City approval process es. Thus, the EIR’s evaluation should include the potential effects of both the SOIA and the annexation.

LAFCo recognizes that if the SOIA and annexation areas are cot erminous, any impacts likely would be the same.

nd full paragraph, last sentence: The expectation of Raney is that we will serve as environmental consultants to the City and will make ourselves available to assist the City to facilitate the process.

Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

Please change to: The expectation of Raney is that we will serve as environmental consultants to the City and LAFCo, and will make ourselves available to assist the City and LAFCo to facilitate the process.

Administrative Draft EIR will include all statutory sections required by CEQA Sections 15120-15132 and provide the public and decision- makers with a thorough, legally defensible environmental analysis of the proposed project.

Please change to: The Administrative Draft EIR will include all statutory sections required by CEQA Sections 15120-15132, and California Government Code Section 56000 et. seq, to and provide the public and decision- makers with a thorough, legally defensible environmental analysis of the proposed project.

Neither the scope presented here nor the Bargas scope in Proposal Appendix B include any evaluation of the project’s potential conflict with the Natomas Basin HCP or other similar plans pursuant to Appendix G, Question IV (f). See additional information below.

Pages 9- 10 , Task 4.2( e), Tribal Consultation: Raney understands the City of Sacramento has received letters from tribes requesting notice pursuant to AB 52/PRC 21080.3.1. Raney understands the City will handle all requi rements and formal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, and will notify the tribes in writing of the proposed project within 14 days from the start of the CEQA process.

The notification should be made on behalf of both the City of Sacramento and Sacramento LAFCo since they are joint lead agencies.

nd
Sentence: Raney will review the City of Sacramento General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as LAFCo policies and standards and any other appropriate documents to address any policy or consistency issues due to the proposed project entitlements.

Please change to: Raney will review the City of Sacramento General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as LAFCo statutes, policies and standards and any other appropriate documents to address any policy or consistency issues due to the proposed project entitlements.

Pages 13-14, Task 4.2(k), Public Service and Service Systems:

Prior to considering the proposed SOIA, LAFCo will require the preparation of Plans for Service of all major utilities outside of the CEQA process. Ofttimes, these Plans are prepared early in the LAFCo/City review processes, and are then used to inform the CEQA document.

Pages 15- 16 Task 6, Prepare Public Review D raft EIR, 1 st paragraph: Raney
understands Sacrament o LAFCo will hold a public hearing during this time to receive public comments. Raney assumes that the revisions from additional comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR will only require editorial or other non-substantive changes.

Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

LAFCo’s public hearing will be held during circulation of the DEIR to receive comments on the analyses and environmental conclusions set forth in the DEIR pursuant to Section 15202 of the State CEQA Guidelines. LAFCo anticipates that any comments received regarding the EIR would be properly addressed in the FEIR. LAFCo does not intend to solicit public comments on the Screencheck or previous iterations of the DEIR.

Standard LAFCo Concerns Regarding Environmental Review
for Projects that Require LAFCo Entitlements
The EIR should address the following issues of statutory concern to LAFCo to permit LAFCo to use the environmental documentation in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed SOIA and annexation. LAFCo acknowledges that some of these issues are of minor relevance to the project and its setting, but nonetheless LAFCo is required to make specific findings on these topics prior to taking action on the project.

Population, Employment and Housing – T he EIR’s evaluation should discuss the presence and potential loss of affordable housing within the project area and, if there would be any loss, what affect the loss would have on a countywide basis. As part of the Commission’s review of City boundary requests, LAFCo is required to ensure that there be no net loss of targeted housing resources on a countywide basis. If targeted housing resources are located within, or planned for the project area, the EIR should evaluate whether implementation of the proposed project would maintain such resources or continue to allow their potential development. If not, the EIR should explain how this loss of affordable housing would affect the City’s and County’s provision of targeted housing types, and propose mitigation to ensure that both the City and County meet their state allocation for affordable housing. An explicit discussion in the EIR documenting that there are no existing or planned affordable housing resources on the project site would suffice for this topic.

Public Services and Utilities – From LAFCo’s perspective, in addition to meeting CEQA requirements, the EIR’s evaluation of public services and utilities should focus on the following issues, including whether any physical facilities would need to be constructed to serve the proposed project, including those outside of the project site, whose construction potentially could have environmental effects. If so, the secondary effects of constructing and operating such facilities should be evaluated. Secondly, the evaluation should assess whether the City and any other service providers have ( 1) the service capability and capacity to serve the project site, and (2) whether they can provide services to the project without adversely affecting existing service levels elsewhere in their service areas.

The evaluation should assess whether the City would perform any services now being provided by another service provider in the planning area, and whether substitution of the City for that provider would have any adverse effects on the previous provider’s ability to maintain services elsewhere in its service area.

Natural Resources - Agricultural Lands – In evaluating and considering future boundary requests, LAFCo is required to make findings regarding agricultural resources within the context of LAFCo enabling legislation, and local policies and standards. To Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

permit LAFCo to complete this evaluation, the EIR’s analysis should include a discussion of any current agricultural uses and activities within and adjacent to the planning area, including the presence of any lands protected by Williamson Act contracts or within a Farmland Security Zone. The evaluation should also discuss the characteristics of soils found within the area (NRCS land use capability classification and storie index rating [from soil survey], and FMMP classification [from DOC Important Farmlands Map]) to determine the presence or absence of “prime agricultural land” as pursuant to the five tests defined by Government Code §56064. Areas of prime agricultural land should be displayed on a map. In addition to soils information, if agricultural uses are present, for each use or operation the EIR should determine if the use supports, at a minimum, one Animal Unit (AU)/acre or has returned, or would return if planted with crops, or fruit or nut bearing trees, an agricultural value of at least $400/acre for 3 of the last 5 years. Describe the location and determine the acreage of such areas. (See GC §56064) If there are lands protected by Williamson Act contracts or within a Farmland Security Zone, determine the status, location, and acreage of such lands (renewal, non- renewal), and if non-renewal, the expiration date of the contract(s). In the event that the project would result in the loss of prime agricultural land or protected agricultural lands, evaluate the trend of agricultural land loss countywide, and what portion of the overall inventory and loss that this project represents. As necessary, the EIR should propose mitigation to reduce any potential impacts to important agricultural resources to a less-than-significant level.

Natural Resources - Open Space - The analysis should include an evaluation of any open space resources as defined by GC §65560 that are located within or adjacent to the project area. Such resources should be depicted on a map. If implementation of the project would result in the loss of open space resources, the EIR needs to evaluate the trend of open space loss countywide, and what portion of the overall inventory and loss that this project represents. The EIR should propose mitigation to reduce any potential impacts to open space resources to a less-than-significant level.

Environmental Justice - State law requires LAFCo to consider the extent to which a project will promote environmental justice. “ Environmental justice” means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public ser vices. The EIR should provide sufficient evidence to permit LAFCo to make a determination regarding this issue.

Habitat Preservation – Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan – LAFCo notes that the biological resource evaluation should include an evaluation of impacts to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and other resource planning documents, and provide mitigation for any identified adverse effects consistent with the requirements of State and Federal regulatory authorities for impacts t o special status species and sensitive habitats. Future development of the project could conflict with the assumptions regarding species, habitats, and preserves underlying the NBHCP’s conservation strategy.

Floodplain Areas – The scope of the analysis of hydrology and water quality/stormwater quality should include an evaluation of the project’s compliance with the requirements of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, including protection of the project site from the Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

0.5 percent (200- year) flood, and with the regulations of all other applicable Federal, State, and regional flood control agencies.

Land Use and Planning – The EIR’s topics to be evaluated within Land Use should include a consistency evaluation with not only the SACOG Blueprint, but also the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the NBHCP.

Growth Inducement – The EIR should include an evaluation of the project’s prospect to induce growth in the project vicinity, including both direct and indirect inducement.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Regards,
José C. Henríquez
Executive Officer

EXHIBIT 4
Natomas Basin Habitat
Conservation Plan Area
Biological Effectiveness
Monitoring Report
2022 ANNUAL SURVEY RESULTS
FINAL

BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN

HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AREA
2022 ANNUAL SURVEY RESULTS
P R E P A R E D F O R :

The Natomas Basin Conservancy
2150 River Plaza Drive, Suite 460
Sacramento, CA 95833
Contact: John Roberts, Executive Director
916.649.3331
P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICF
980 9th Street, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact: Douglas Leslie
916.737.3000
April 2023

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Habitat Suitability 2022
Suitable
Marginal
Not Suitable
J
0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25
Miles
Sources: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar
Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS
User Community
Legend
Suitable habitat
Marginal habitat
Unsuitable habitat
NBC 104332 (4-25-2023) TG
FIGURE 3-17
Suitability of Habitat in the Canals of the
Natomas Basin for Giant Gartersnake in 2022

EXHIBIT 5

III-1 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
III. LAND USE ISSUES
The Land Use Issues chapter describes: A. Authorized development by Jurisdiction, B. Existing land uses, and C. Potential development under the NBHCP.

A. AUTHORIZED DEVELOPMENT BY JURISDICTION
The NBHCP establishes a multi-species conservation program to mitigate the expected loss of habitat and incidental take and/or loss of Covered Species that would result from planned urban development and other Covered Activities. Within each jurisdiction, certain levels of planned urban development are covered by this NBHCP.

These levels are referred to as “Authorized Development” and are identified for each jurisdiction.

Based on a growth scenarios outlined by existing general plans for each Land Use Permittee, the total acreage potentially to be developed in the Natomas Basin is 13,533 to 20,033 acres, depending primarily on the extent of urbanization in Sutter County (see Table III-5). Although the adopted General Plans include a range of development, the NBHCP and related incidental take permits coverage, and the ITP issued to MAP, is limited to a maximum of 17,500 acres of urban development within the footprint for urban development shown on Figure 16 (“Planned Development”).

The NBHCP provides coverage for Authorized Development for each of the NBHCP Land Use Agency Permittees intending to allow urban development within the Natomas Basin (City of Sacramento and Sutter County). Such Authorized Development is limited to 15,517 acres. This Authorized Development, combined with MAP’s 1,983 acres of development authorized under a separate HCP and ITPs, totals 17,500 acres and this combined acreage is referred to herein as Planned Development.

Any development in excess of that authorized by this HCP would not have take coverage under this HCP and such take coverage would require either an amendment to this HCP and permits or preparation of a separate HCP and approval of separate permits for that additional development, including an updated assessment of impacts and mitigation measures. The total acreage of Authorized Development in the Natomas Basin proposed to be covered under the City and Sutter County’s permits along with the acreage covered under the recently approved Metro Air Park incidental take permits is shown in Table III-1.

All lands within the NBHCP area that are not indicated as existing development on the Land Use Agencies’ “Baseline Maps” (for City of Sacramento’s Baseline Map and for Sutter County’s Baseline Map, see Exhibits B and C of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement) will be subject to full compliance with the NBHCP when or if they are developed. The one exception to this would be open areas left in an undisturbed state within areas otherwise developed, if the Natomas Basin Conservancy agrees to accept fee title to such lands or (see Section VI.D) a conservation easement over them.

April 2003

TABLE III-1

PLANNED DEV ELOPMENT BY PERMITTEE
Permittee Planned Development Considered
Within the NBHCP
City of Sacramento 8,050 acres
Sutter County 7,467 acres
Metro Air Park1 1,983 acres
Total 17,500 acres

1. The Metro Air Park (MAP) project located in Sacramento County will impact a total of 1,983 acres. While MAP is not a Permittee under this NBHCP, MAP has submitted a similar HCP and has ob tained ITPs from the CDFG and the USFWS. Total development allocated to the City and Sutter County, combined with the anticipated 1,983 acres of MAP development, result in a total of 17,500 acres of development in the Basin.

All lands within the NBHCP area that are not indicated as existing development on the Land Use Agencies’ “Baseline Maps” (for City of Sacramento’s Baseline Map and for Sutter County’s Baseline Map, see Exhibits B and C of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement) will be subject to full compliance with the NBHCP when or if they are developed. The one exception to this would be open areas left in an undisturbed state within areas otherwise developed, if the Natomas Basin Conservancy agrees to accept fee title to such lands or (see Section VI.D) a conservation easement over them.

The Authorized Development allowed under the NBHCP for the City and Sutter County as specified in Table III-1 shall remain covered by the NBHCP for the City of Sacramento and Sutter County regardless of the rate of the development or modifications to land use designations of other jurisdiction(s). Jurisdictions which are not party to the NBHCP and propose urban development in the basin would be required to independently obtain incidental take coverage and achieve compliance with the state and federal Endangered Species Acts in a manner that does not undermine the species protection measures and conservation strategy of the NBHCP.

In particular, any increase in the total authorized level of Authorized Development covered by the NBHCP beyond 15,517 or an increase beyond the proposed 17,500 acres of Planned Development shall require an amendment to the NBHCP and shall be subject to additional biological or other analysis as deemed appropriate by the USFWS and the CDFG (see Section VI.C) and will require an amendment to the incidental take permits or issuance of new permits.)
The Sacramento International Airport is within the NBHCP Plan Area, but expansion of the airport is not covered by the NBHCP Incidental Take Permits. The airport will mitigate for future disturbance to airport lands through coordination between the Airport and Sacramento County, and obtain any necessary incidental take coverage from USFWS and CDFG. The specific areas of potential airport expansion are not currently specified.

III-2 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES
April 2003

III-3 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
Authorized Development may not be transferred among jurisdictions unless an analysis of the effects of such transfer on the effectiveness of the conservation strategy contained in the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program demonstrates that the transfer would not compromise the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program. Such a transfer would also require the consent of all agencies or entities affected by the transfer, including affected Land Uses Agencies and the Wildlife Agencies and would require review in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws.

B. EXISTING LAND USE
Existing land uses in the HCP were developed based on the 1997 database for land uses as updated by field check and geographic information system mapping conducted by CH2MHill in 2001. The 2001 break-out of land use by type (acres) provided by CH2MHill is included in Table III-4. Agricultural cover types described herein reflect conditions as of 1997. Urban development acreage and drainage/waterway data have been updated to reflect 2001 conditions.

1. Agriculture

Agriculture is the primary land use in the Natomas Basin with approximately 42,800 acres in agricultural production in 1997. Land under Williamson Act contracts (entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act, California Government Code Section 51200, et seq. “The Williamson Act”) in the Sacramento County portion of the Natomas Basin comprises 9,195 acres (Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Map). Sutter County began participating in the Williamson Act program in 2000, and as of February 2002 there were 2,076 acres of land within Sutter County’s portion of the Natomas Basin under Williamson Act contract. Primary crops grown in the Natomas Basin include rice, safflower, wheat, barley, alfalfa, corn, pasture land, tomatoes, and fruit trees. Rice cultivation within the Natomas Basin as of 1997 is shown on Figure 15.

The relationship between agriculture in the Natomas Basin Plan Area to the integrity of the Natomas Basin giant garter snake population is unique as compared to the relationship between other land uses in the Natomas Basin to the population's viability. Agriculture within the Natomas Basin: (1) provides habitat that the giant garter snake can occupy; (2) provides waterways necessary to the giant garter snake's mobility throughout the Natomas Basin; (3) contributes to economies of scale for the use of resources such as water, thereby lowering the costs for operating the agricultural reserves; and (4) non-rice farming within the Natomas Basin increases the long term habitat opportunities for the giant garter snake by allowing rice farms to rotate to other crops when the cost of rice is down, rather than letting the farm go fallow, losing the water supply, and creating significant start-up costs to return the acreage to habitat.

Rice: About 95% of all California rice is grown in the Sacramento Valley (U.C.

Agricultural Issues Center 1994); and rice lands in the Natomas Basin grow about 3% of the State total. Rice crops are grown in standing water for most of the season; heavy (impermeable) soils and a plentiful water supply are essential. Rice fields are first prepared by discing and leveling using heavy equipment. Fields are then flooded with water from the applicable irrigation source to a depth of 2 to 3 inches. Water requirements for rice farming in the April 2003

III-4 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES
Sacramento region have been estimated at between 4.82 and 6.70 acre-feet of water per acre each year (WESCO 1991). This includes consumption through evapotranspiration and percolation and outflow to the Sacramento River or to recirculation systems. Herbicides are applied to the water to control growth of aquatic weeds and insecticides are applied to combat water weevil and shrimp. The herbicides and the insecticides are held in the water on the fields until the chemicals begin to degrade due to their exposure to sunlight. Following their degradation, and two to three weeks before harvest, the water is drained from the field. Ninety percent (90%) of the rice crops have a 145-day growing season from mid-April to mid-August.

The residual rice straw in the fields after harvesting is typically burned, plowed under, or flooded. Flooding to dispose of rice straw is becoming more prevalent as the practice of burning rice straw is being phased out due to air quality prohibitions. In addition to rotting the rice stubble, flooded rice fields provide wetland habitat for ducks, geese and other migratory waterfowl.

Agricultural water is provided by groundwater or is diverted from the Sacramento River by Natomas Mutual which supplies the Natomas Basin. The company is a private mutual water company that holds water rights for landowners. Natomas Mutual has several diversion canals on the Sacramento River which feed a network of smaller canals and ditches leading to the agricultural fields. This network includes ditches owned by the RD 1000.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has subsidy programs which are administered through the Farm Services Agency (FSA) at the county level. Farmers participate in the program by annually reporting their base crop acreage to the FSA. Participating farmers can receive a price deficiency payment when market prices fall below the target price established by Congress as the break even point. Table III-4 shows 1997 totals for agriculture in the Natomas Basin.

2. Waterways
The Natomas Basin is served by an extensive network of water delivery and drainage channels operated by Natomas Mutual and RD 1000. These channels, combined with the extensive rice fields within the Basin, are important habitat areas for the giant garter snake and other wetland associated species within the Basin. Since giant garter snakes live in the canals and ditches maintained by RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual, canal and ditch maintenance activities of the Water Agencies may result in take of the listed species. RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual are committed to reducing impacts of operation and maintenance practices on Covered Species and, to the extent practicable, to observing practices that are beneficial to these species, particularly the giant garter snake.

The acreage calculations and mile calculations for canals and drains in the Natomas Basin, as of the 2001 baseline, and by jurisdiction, are shown below in the following two tables.

Table III-2 shows the number of miles of canals and drains by Class in 2001 for the City of Sacramento, Metro Air Park, Other Sacramento County, and Sutter County, with totals for each class and jurisdiction. Table III-3 shows the acres of canals and drains, by jurisdiction, for the same 2001 baseline. The canal types are separated into four classes; Class I, Class II, Class III, April 2003

III-5 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
and Class IV. Class I canals are the largest canals within the Basin and have been mapped upon aerial photos to determine the land area within these major canal. Class II through Class IV canals are lesser canals with assumed widths that range from 66 feet to 38 feet in width, respectively.

TABLE III-2
CANALS AND DRA INS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001 (MILES) Canal Type City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter
County TOTAL
Class I 13.9 0.0 14.9 7.1 35.9
Class II 4.0 4.0 18.0 24.5 50.5
Class III 15.1 3.5 50.5 28.5 97.6
Class IV 5.1 4.1 31.4 22.3 62.9
TOTAL 38.1 11.6 114.9 82.4 246.9
Source: CH2M Hill, September 2001.

TABLE III-3
CANALS AND DRA INS IN THE NATOMAS BASIN - 2001 (ACRES) Canal Type City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter
County TOTAL
Class I 129 0 308 66 503
Class IIa 32 32 144 196 404
Class IIIa 90 21 301 170 582
Class IVa 23 19 145 103 289
TOTAL 275 72 898 534 1,779
a Class II, III, and IV canals and drains are linear features in the GIS database. Conversion to area features required using a standard width for each canal type, which was determined to be 65.9, 49.2, and 38.0 feet for Class II, III, and IV canals, respectively, based o n information from Natomas Mutual. These standard widths include adjacent upland areas (e.g., maintenance roads) in addition to channel width.

Source: CH2M Hill, September 2001.

3. Road Network
The road network in the Natomas Basin occupies a substantial acreage of land. The Natomas Basin is traversed by 25 miles of State and Interstate highway corridors (I-80, I-5, and State Route 70/99). These roadways have several traffic lanes in each direction and the right-of- way widths vary with terrain and interchanges (Caltrans, District 4, pers. comm.). Smaller (2- April 2003

III-6 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES

lane) surface streets serving agricultural areas in Sacramento County and Sutter County add to the linear mileage of the paved roadway network. In the Natomas area of the City of Sacramento, roads serving the Arco Arena and other urbanized areas have also been constructed. In 1993, Thomas Reid Associates estimated that 1,527 acres (3% of the land area in the Basin) had been paved either in freeway or local roads. Table III-4 shows acreage totals for highways in the Natomas Basin in 2001. Other roads are included in the “Urban” category of Table III-4.

4. Urban Development
Before the original HCP was adopted and the incidental take permits were issued to the City of Sacramento in December 1997, existing urban development in the Natomas Basin was concentrated in the southern portion of the Basin near Interstate 80. Most residential development existed within the South Natomas area of the City of Sacramento in the southeastern portion of the Basin, east of I-5 and south of I-80. Other residential areas included rural estates north of Del Paso Road and west of Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (now known as Steelhead Creek), a mobile home park on El Centro Road, and miscellaneous scattered single family residences. In addition to residential uses, other areas of development included the Natomas Sewage Treatment Pumping Station, Natomas Air Park (now closed), Sacramento International Airport (formerly known as Sacramento Metropolitan Airport), Arco Arena, Raley’s Distribution Center, and the Northgate Business Park industrial area. Overall, as of 2001, about 7,267 acres had been urbanized, (including highways, airport and other uses) in the Basin and therefore did not provide habitat for Covered Species or require mitigation. Table III-4 shows the land use acreage totals in the Natomas Basin in 2001.

Between 1998 and December 2001, about 3,787 acres of urbanization occurred in the Natomas Basin. About 2,250 acres of residential areas in North Natomas and the western portion of South Natomas were developed. The following non-residential projects were built in North Natomas: a 600,000 square foot retail center, known as Natomas Marketplace at Truxel Road and I-80; 108,000 square foot office building along Del Paso Road; 80,000 square foot office building at Arena Corporate Center along Arena Boulevard; and three office buildings at Gateway Park and Arena Boulevards, totaling about 100 acres. Also, the following non- residential projects were built in South Natomas: Sutter Health building, California Farm Bureau building, BTV Crown Corporate Center office buildings, and the alternative high school, totaling about 75 acres. Also, about 300 acres of infrastructure were developed between 1998 and 2000 in the Natomas Basin, including comprehensive drainage plan improvements, detention basins, streets, water mains and other miscellaneous improvements. During the 2001 construction season, 1,062 acres of land were converted to development under the City’s Settlement Agreement.

April 2003

III-7 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
TABLE III-4
LAND USES BY JURI SDICTION - 2001 (ACRES)
Land Use Classa City of
Sacramento
Metro Air
Park
Other
Sacramento
County
Sutter
County TOTAL
Airport 18 0 1,512 21 1,551
Alfalfa 0 0 137 234 371
Canals 129 0 308 66 503
Grassland 454 0 293 138 886
Highways 450 0 414 571 1,435
Idle 838 50 480 94 1,464
Non-rice Crops 4,905 325 8,591 2,866 16,686
Oak groves 15 2 70 11 98
Orchard 13 0 169 0 182
Other 148 0 305 15 468
Pasture 35 22 261 355 674
Ponds and seasonally
wet areas
7 4 75 10 96
Rice 987 1,541 8,427 11,737 22,693
Riparian 24 0 93 6 124
Ruderal 1,429 6 261 274 1,970
Rural residential 49 10 170 148 377
Tree groves 36 23 39 8 106
Urban 3,298 0 229 327 3,854
TOTAL 12,836 1,983 21,836 16,881 53,537
Source: Habitat and Land Use Assessment Database, (CH2M Hill, 2001).

Note: Urban uses noted herein reflect 2001 conditions. Agricultural cover ty pes reflect 1997 uses. Since 1997, all rice production within Metro Air Park has been discontinued.

Airport Lands within the ownership boundary for the Sacramento International Airport, including all land use types (e.g., facilities, runways, open lands and farmlands adjacent to runways) within boundary. Does not include airport buffer lands (e.g., south of I -5). Also includes the former Natomas April 2003

III-8 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES
Air Park and several small rural airstrips (one in Sacramento County and two in Sutter County).

Alfalfa Based on a subset of the DWR “Pasture” land use category that includes alfalfa production, as estimated for the 2001 baseline. Includes known alfalfa fields along Garden Highway in Sutter County.

Canals The largest (Class I) canals and drains (including adj acent maintenance roads) in the Natomas Basin, primarily the ones already digitized for the DWR land use maps. Includes the East Drain, West Drain, Main Drain, North Drain, and the Central Main Canal. Does not include smaller canals and drains, which are recorded in the project database as linear features.

Grassland Based on DWR “Native Vegetation” land use category with additional information provided by May & Associates field data and aerial photo interpretation, as estimated for the 2001 baseline. Inclu des known uncultivated grasslands, primarily along the eastern border of the Natomas Basin.

Highways Includes Interstates 5 and 80, S.R. 99/70, and interchanges, including all areas within medians.

Idle Based on DWR “Idle” land use category - agricultural lands temporarily out of production.

Non-Rice Crops Based on the DWR land use categories of “Grain and Hay Crops,” “Field Crops,” and “Tilled Lands.” In the Natomas Basin, this category includes primarily wheat, corn, safflower, and tomatoes.

Oak Groves Includes several isolated pockets of mature oak trees east of Garden Highway.

Orchard Based on the DWR land use categories of “Deciduous Fruits/Nuts” and “Citrus and Subtropical.” In the Natomas Basin, this includes primarily pear, peach, and walnut orchards adjacent to Garden Highway.

Other Miscellaneous land uses not captured by other land use categories.

Includes Teal Bend Golf Course, the wastewater plant at Sacramento International Airport, and several utility substations.

Pasture Based on DWR “Pasture” land use category, including primarily irrigated pasture in the Natomas Basin.

Ponds/Wet Areas Wetland/marsh areas including Pritchard’s Lake and several isolated locations throughout the Natomas Basin. Based on DWR’s “Water Surface” land use cat egory and some “Riparian Vegetation” categories, April 2003

III-9 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
with additional information provided by May & Associates data and aerial photo interpretation.

Rice Based on DWR’s “Rice” land use category.

Riparian Based on DWR’s primary “Riparian” category, with addit ional information provided by May & Associates data. Includes cottonwood/willow areas along primary canals and drains, including the Fisherman’s Lake area.

Ruderal Includes former agricultural lands that are no longer in production, primarily due to proxi mity to urbanized areas (e.g., surrounding Arco Arena). Includes DWR’s “Barren” and “Vacant” land use categories.

Ruderal lands typically consist of non -native grasses, and most are occasionally tilled for fire control.

Rural Residential Includes farmhouses and farm equipment yards. Includes DWR’s “Semi - Agricultural” land use category, with additional information provided by aerial photo interpretation.

Tree Groves Includes non -riparian stands of trees other than mature oaks. Based on DWR’s “Native Vegeta tion” land use category, with additional information by May & Associates data and aerial photo interpretation.

Urban Urbanized areas. Primarily in the City of Sacramento, but also including unincorporated areas along El Centro Road in Sacramento County a nd Pacific Avenue in Sutter County.

5. Sacramento International Airport
Sacramento International Airport (SIA) currently uses 2,800 acres for runways, terminals, hangers and extensive north-south flyover buffers (see Figure 2, Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions). The airport owns additional land as shown in the breakdown below. The airport property is generally bounded by the County line to the north and the Sacramento River to the south, and extends roughly 1.5 miles west from Powerline Road. The Airport is owned and operated by the County of Sacramento.

Land under the control of the Sacramento County Department of Airports includes the airport facilities and surrounding buffer lands acquired to minimize conflicts between airport operations and encroaching urban development (see Figure 17). These areas have been mapped by CH2M Hill and the actual airport facilities (land inside the airport fenceline) is estimated to include 1,505 acres. Additionally, the Department of Airports has acquired approximately 4,050 acres of surrounding buffer lands. Thus, the total area under the direct control of the County Department of Airports is 5,565 acres. The Department is also currently seeking to acquire an additional 438 acres of buffer lands.

April 2003

III-10 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES
In March 1996, the Sacramento County Department of Airports adopted a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP) as required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under 14 CFR 139.337 (Hall 1996). The WHMP assesses the extent of wildlife hazards at SIA and directs the Airport to manage wildlife hazards to reduce risk to public safety and risk of property damage. The WHMP plan is based on an Ecological Study completed in July 1993.

The main wildlife hazard is bird strikes--i.e., collisions between aircraft and birds.

Modern aircraft engines and windshields are designed to resist damage from bird strikes and strikes seldom result in accidents. However, bird strikes do cause significant repair expense.

The greatest threat to aircraft is large bird species, which individually can cause significant damage, and flocking birds, which can result in multiple strikes.

The most prominent wildlife hazards for airports are birds that occur on or near airport grounds and that fly across an aircraft's flight path during landing or takeoff. Most airports experience 70%-90% of all strikes in this area under 500 ft AGL (above ground level). At SIA, about 50% of the strikes occur under 500 ft AGL. SIA is located in the Pacific Flyway and is in the Sacramento Valley, a major waterfowl wintering area. Wintering waterfowl contribute to a greater than average frequency of birds struck above 500 ft AGL because waterfowl tend to fly high to and from feeding and roosting/loafing areas. Waterfowl account for 50% of the strikes at SIA where the species could be determined and the majority of strikes at SIA, 46%, occur in winter during the months of December, January, and February. SIA experiences a higher than average bird strike/air operations ratio than most airports at about 1 in 4,000 landings or takeoffs.

FAA encourages keeping strikes below 1 in 10,000.

The WHMP addresses a range of on-site management actions to be undertaken by the airport to reduce attractiveness of the airport lands to birds and to disperse birds that occur.

Birds are attracted by open water, including ponded rainwater, and food from crops or recently tilled lands. Birds are dispersed by "hazing" (frightening birds with loud noises or recorded distress calls). One component of the WHMP calls for reducing open water in drainage ditches, which could reduce GGS habitat. Another component calls for elimination of hawk roost trees near the runway and could marginally affect Swainson's hawk habitat.

In general, the FAA identifies the area within two miles of the runway centerline as the critical zone for managing wildlife hazards. For the Natomas Basin, the 2-mile zone extends east nearly to U.S. 99. The WHMP directs airports to avoid placing bird attractant uses in the critical zone, including solid waste disposal sites and wildlife refuges. FAA regulations govern placement of refuse dumps near airports.

In May, 1997, the FAA published an Advisory Circular concerning wildlife attractants near airports (FAA 1997). This Advisory Circular recommends the following distances between an airport's aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas and the wildlife attractant: (1) 5,000 feet for airports serving piston-powered aircraft; and (2) 10,000 feet for airports serving turbine-powered aircraft. In addition, the Circular recommends that a distance of five statute miles be maintained between a wildlife attractant and the airport's approach or April 2003

III-11 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
departure airspace if the attractant may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.

Rice farming has been a historic, ubiquitous use of the agricultural lands surrounding SIA and is typically considered impractical and unnecessary to regulate by the Department of Airports (Glen Sanders, Sacramento County Department of Airports, and Thomas Hall, USDA, Animal Damage Control, pers. comm). Rice farming near the runways is not considered to be a significant source of wildlife hazards in the Natomas Basin, with the exception of grain spillage left in the fields following harvest, which attracts birds. During the summer growing season, migratory waterfowl are absent and fields attract a relatively small number of other birds, such as egrets and herons, that are considered a potential threat to aircraft. Once harvested, however, grain spillage creates an obvious attraction to waterfowl, especially in rain flooded fields. The practice of winter flooding in lieu of burning to remove the rice straw may broaden the range of birds attracted to the rice fields and pose a more significant threat to aircraft (Thomas Hall, pers. comm). In addition, the use of managed marsh as wetlands as described in Chapter IV of the NBHCP (see Sections IV.C.3.d and VI.) is unlikely to pose bird strike hazards to SIA due to both their being sited within prescribed safe distances indicated and by the fact that they are not designed to attract migratory waterfowl, the type of bird the SIA evidences is of most concern.

These factors must be taken into account when selecting and managing reserve lands under the NBHCP.

Sacramento International Airport (Buffer Lands)
Surrounding Sacramento International Airport, there are airport buffer lands which are maintained in agricultural uses. These lands are considered beneficial to the Covered Species within the Basin in that they provide a large contiguous block of predominantly upland habitat.

Development of these buffer lands to industrial or other commercial uses will be considered a significant change in the NBHCP and would require that the County either participate in a revision to the HCP, or apply for an individual take permit that mitigates for project impacts.

Although the Permittees are not relying on the Airport buffer lands as mitigation for effects within the Natomas Basin, retaining these lands in agricultural uses will contribute to the overall success of NBHCP conservation strategies for the Covered Species.

C. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Three separate local governments have jurisdiction over the NBHCP Area. Within the Basin, 16,581 acres lie in Sutter County and 36,656 acres lie in Sacramento County. Within Sacramento County, 12,836 acres of the Basin lie within the city limits of the City of Sacramento. The City portion of the Basin consists of the North Natomas Community Plan Area, and the South Natomas Community Plan Area. Each of the land use planning agencies in the Natomas Basin (City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and Sutter County) have land use plans governing anticipated future development within the NBHCP area. The status of land use planning within each jurisdiction is discussed below.

April 2003

III-12 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES

1. Foreseeable Urban Development and Status Under the NBHCP Local governments guide land use through their general plans. While the general plans of the City, Sutter, and Sacramento County are subject to amendment over the 50-year term of the NBHCP and permits, they offer a reasonable basis for predicting the extent and location of future development. The following discussion of land use planning is not a limitation of the NBHCP or its associated permits; the permits will apply to all Authorized Development in the Natomas Basin. For purposes of the permits, the NBHCP makes no distinction between areas with approved land use plans and areas with current agricultural zoning, and nothing in the NBHCP affects the land use status of any parcel. The underlying development activities must be authorized by the local agency before incidental take authorization under the City or Sutter County’s incidental take permits will be extended to that project. Land use entitlements will continue to remain under the authority of the respective local jurisdictions. Figure 2 shows the footprint of the area in which Authorized Development would be covered by the incidental take permits. Impacts to habitat and species and the related mitigation program are based on an analysis of the effects of land use development within the areas shown.

Table III-5 shows the currently approved or reasonably foreseeable maximum growth scenario for the Natomas Basin. As discussed below, a range is shown for Sutter County. The purpose of these data is to provide an estimate of potential urban development and resulting take and to provide a basis to assess funding requirements. Existing plans prepared by the City, Sutter, and Sacramento County are discussed solely for the purpose of identifying likely levels of development and its potential impacts.

TABLE III-5

POTENTIAL URBA N DEVELOPMENT
AREA/PROJECT LAND PLAN USES (acres)
Sutter County 3,500 to 10,000a
Sacramento Airport Unspecified
Metro Air Park (Sacramento Co.) 1,983
North Natomas Community Plan
(City of Sacramento)
7,150b
South Natomas (City of Sacramen to) 900b
TOTAL 13,533 - 20,033
a. Maximum development scenario derived in the 1995 Sutter County general plan which designates 10,000 acres within the Natomas Basin as Industrial/Commercial Reserve and allows development of 3,500 acres by year 2015.
b. The total number of acres projected for development in the NNCP area is 7,150 acres, including 6,510 acres within the City limits (as of 12/31/00) and 640 acres within the County area anticipated to be annexed into the City during 2002 (excluding existing development shown in the Baseline Map - Exhibit A in the Implementation Agreement). The total number of acres projected for development in the SNCP area is 900 acres, including the approximately 50 acre property annexed into the City (Costa, Giannoni, Pa rr). As of 12/31/00, Urban Development Permits have April 2003

III-13 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
been issued on 2,676 + acres in both the NNCP and SNCP areas. The entire 8,050 City of Sacramento acres (North Natomas and South Natomas) are located within the City’s Permit Area. a. Sacramento County

The Sacramento County General Plan was updated in December 1993. There are two urban policy areas affecting County lands within the Natomas Basin, the Sacramento International Airport/Vicinity Special Planning Area (Metro Air Park) and the North Natomas Community Plan Area (the majority of which is in the City of Sacramento). The Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Diagram (Sacramento County General Plan Update 1993) incorporates the land use designations specified within both these special planning areas. The majority of Sacramento County land within the Basin and outside of these policy areas is designated for retention as Agricultural Cropland by the Sacramento County General Plan. At this time, it is not anticipated that these agricultural lands will be converted to urban land uses.

There is currently a proposal before Sacramento County to expand the Urban Services Boundary to include approximately 6,500 acres. This proposal would affect land within Sacramento County’s northeast portion of the Natomas Basin. This proposal has not been analyzed within or covered by the NBHCP and the effects on endangered species and mitigation for the development of this land would not be provided through the NBHCP. Thus incidental take authorization for such potential development would not be based on the NBHCP. Any further urban development would require new biological analysis and regulatory review and associated permits.

Sacramento County currently is not seeking coverage under the HCP. Other than MAP, whose landowners association has obtained a separate incidental take permit, Sacramento County currently has no approved development plans.

Metro Air Park
The Metro Air Park Special Planning Area lies east of the airport property and encompasses 1,892 acres. In August 1993, Sacramento County amended its zoning ordinance to allow airport related uses, light manufacturing, high tech research and development, professional office space, limited support retail, and recreation. Essentially all of the area is foreseen for urbanization. Also, 119 acres of off-site improvements are anticipated for the Metro Air Park project - 28 acres are in the City of Sacramento and 91 acres are in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County (therefore 1,983 acres of development are assigned to Metro Air Park in Tables III-1 and III-5).
b. City of Sacramento
North Natomas Community Plan Area
The North Natomas Community Plan was adopted in 1986 by the City of Sacramento and was amended in 1994. North Natomas is designated by the City's General Plan to be the City's major growth area for housing and employment. The Arco Arena, a major event center for sports and concerts, is located here. The planned community encompasses 9,038 acres (7,438 acres April 2003

III-14 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES
within Sacramento city limits and 1,600 acres currently of unincorporated Sacramento County land). A 640 acre portion of the unincorporated county area is currently under consideration for annexation into the City of Sacramento and is included in the City’s Authorized Development shown in Table III-1.

The North Natomas Community Plan sets forth a vision, guiding policies and implementing policies for each plan element: Land Use, Circulation, Community Services and Facilities, and Implementation Programs. The North Natomas Community Plan sets forth a new urban form for North Natomas that includes (1) a Town Center and Regional Park as the “heart of the community”; (2) sustainable neighborhoods each with an elementary school as its focal point with a variety of housing types, parks and open space, commercial services, and transit service close to employment; (3) employment centers designed to be mixed-use centers with primarily employment generators (office, industrial) but may include residential and retail uses also; and (4) land use is designed to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel, specifically transit, bicycling, and walking. The recent inventory of planned land uses in the NBHCP are as follows:

Major Employers 2,378 acres
Residential 3,599 acres
Public/Civic Uses 269 acres
Parks 494 acres
Agricultural and Freeway Buffers 255 acres
Drainage and Detention Facilities 420 acres
Other Open Space 354 acres
Agriculture 125 acres
Roads/Light Rail right-of-way 1,144 acres
Total 9,038 acres
Of this total, the following existing projects within the City were exempt from compliance with the NBHCP because they comprise development existing before the 1997 NBHCP: 185 acres Arco Arena Sports Complex; 75 acres Coral Business Center (including Coke and Raley’s); 25 acre County Sanitation property; 10 acres Natomas School along Del Paso Road; 25 acres Stadium Estates mobile home park; and miscellaneous existing road and utility facilities totaling 964 acres. Also, approximately 924 acres within the unincorporated portion of the County (south of Del Paso Road) were existing development and will not be subject to compliance with the NBHCP. Based on the 964 acres of existing development in the City and 924 acres of existing development in the County, 7,150 remaining acres of the total 9,038 acres in the North Natomas Community Plan will be subject to compliance with the NBHCP (about 6,510 acres in the City and 640 acres in the County- north of Del Paso Road).

Between the inception of the 1997 NBHCP in December 1997 and December 2001, private and public development has paid mitigation fees on 3,821 acres of the 8,050 acres in the City’s Permit Area, with fees totaling $13.9 million.

April 2003

III-15 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES
South Natomas Community Plan Area
The South Natomas Community Plan Area was adopted by the City of Sacramento in 1988. The Community Plan Area totals 3,464 acres and is largely urbanized with residential, office, light industrial, and other development. As of December 1997, 900 acres of South Natomas remain undeveloped and subject to future compliance with the HCP. Since the inception of the 1997 NBHCP, private and public uses have paid the mitigation fee and been issued Urban Development Permits on 276 acres. (The South Natomas Community Plan area includes the Natomas West area, west of the Main Drain, formerly known as Willow Creek or known as West Natomas.)
Annexation Requests and Potential Expansion of Sphere of Influence As mentioned above, the annexation area known as the panhandle has always been included in the North Natomas Community Plan and is included in the Authorized Development area of the City; however, the City’s incidental take permits would not apply to the panhandle area until and unless the area is annexed to the City. The City has also received development applications or preliminary expressions of interest for two properties adjacent to the current city limits within the Natomas Basin: 1) West Lakeside, and 2) Greenbriar Farms.

West Lakeside: This proposed annexation area is located at the northwest corner of Del Paso Road and the current city limits, next to the developing Westlake neighborhood. The property is 135 acres in size and an environmental document has been started.

Greenbriar Farms: This proposed annexation area is between the developing North Natomas neighborhoods and the Metro Air Park. The area is 573 gross acres in size.

On June 27, 2000, the Sacramento City Council embarked on a study to consider expansion of the City’s sphere of influence. The sphere of influence is currently co-terminus with the city limits in the Natomas Basin. If eventually requested by the City and approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the City’s sphere of influence could be expanded. However, no coverage for this expanded area is provided under the NBHCP. c. Sutter County
The adopted Sutter County General Plan (1995) designates County areas within the Natomas Basin as Agriculture and Industrial/Commercial Reserve. The Sutter County General Plan designated 10,500 acres in South Sutter County as Industrial/Commercial Reserve, with approximately 10,000 of these acres located in the Natomas Basin. The 1995 General Plan allowed the development of 3,500 acres of this land within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve for the 20 year planning horizon of the General Plan. Under the current Sutter County General Plan, the balance of the Industrial/ Commercial Reserve has the potential to develop over the 50 year term of the NBHCP.

Sutter County has recently approved the South Sutter County Specific Plan (SSCSP), which allows an initial 3,500 acres of development within the County’s Industrial/Commercial April 2003

III-16 NATOMAS BASIN HCP —LAND USE ISSUES
Reserve. The boundaries of the Specific Plan Area are depicted on Figure 2 - Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions. For purposes of this NBHCP, the Specific Plan Area is considered to be very likely to develop, while the remaining land within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve is considered to have the potential to develop over the term of the NBHCP.

The total area of the Industrial/Commercial Reserve within the Natomas Basin includes approximately 10,000 acres. A portion of this total area falls within one mile of the Sacramento River and is, therefore, within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. Sutter County has excluded land within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from its Permit Area and will seek no coverage for development in the Zone under the NBHCP or the associated ITP’s. Land within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve that is more than one mile from the river, and therefore outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, totals approximately 8,573 acres. Following adoption of the NBHCP and issuance of ITP’s, the County will initiate a General Plan Amendment to remove the land within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from the Industrial/Commercial Reserve and designate such land for agricultural uses.

Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to adequately minimize and mitigate the effects of take of the Covered Species depends in part on the exclusion of future urban development from the Sutter County portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, approval by Sutter County of future urban development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional urban development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of Sutter’s Permits.

While the SSCSP identifies 3,500 acres of land for near term development, the remaining areas to be developed within the Industrial/Commercial Reserve have not been specified. Within the total 17,500 acres of development to be considered within the NBHCP, 7,467 has been allocated to Sutter County. Therefore, approximately 1,106 acres of the 8,573 acre Industrial/ Commercial Reserve located outside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone cannot be developed under the take authorization sought under the NBHCP and the associated ITP’s.

Prior to 1997, a total of 146 acres of urban development and 291 acres of roads and highways existed in Sutter County. This pre-existing development is exempt from mitigation requirements under NBHCP. From 1997 through 2001, a single project was constructed within Sutter County, the SYSCO warehouse facility that occupies approximately 50 acres in the vicinity of Pacific Avenue and Sankey Road. The SYSCO project is located within the proposed South Sutter County Specific Plan and this project is counted among the total acres of Authorized Development that is allocated to Sutter County under the NBHCP. Mitigation measures have been adopted by Sutter County, which include purchase of 25 acres of habitat mitigation land consistent with NBHCP guidelines. The purchase of the 25 acres will be in accordance with all provisions identified in the NBHCP. It is anticipated the purchase may be combined with other TNBC purchases.

April 2003

III-17 NATOMAS BASIN HCP—LAND USE ISSUES

2. Conversion of Agricultural Lands
In 2001, approximately 46,230 acres in the Natomas Basin were either in agriculture or other undeveloped uses. As the adopted general plans described above are implemented, agricultural lands will be converted to urban uses. This conversion process is expected to occur over many years. In the Sutter County portion of the Basin, large areas of agriculture will likely persist, after completion of NBHCP Authorized Development. Under the current Sacramento County General Plan (1993), agriculture in unincorporated Sacramento County outside the two urban policy areas designated by the County (Metro Air Park and North Natomas Community Plan Area) will continue to exist.

Development in the early years of the NBHCP will result in some loss of currently- farmed rice land. As of 1997, the North Natomas Community Plan Area had 987 acres in rice.

At the time of the 2001 baseline land use inventory for this HCP, the Metro Air Park had some 1,541 acres in rice. Outside the North Natomas Community Plan Area, the current distribution of rice in the Basin is roughly 42%. Because the Natomas Basin is partially urbanized, individual property owners of farm lands make decisions regarding types of crops, and in the case of rice, whether to fallow or drain fields fairly frequently. Thus, the acreage of agriculture by crop type, is often changing. The best available baseline of agricultural land uses by crop type as determined by CH2MHill and field checked by May and Associates (2001) is used as the baseline for this HCP and related analysis.

It is significant to note that total acres of cultivation and types of crops grown can vary significantly from year to year based on various factors, including market conditions and soil capability. Additionally, there has been a trend of property owners in urbanizing areas to fallow rice fields in expectation of urban development. This NBHCP presents a conservation plan based upon the recent agricultural production as generally described above and specifically noted within Table II-1.

April 2003

EXHIBIT 6

IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
wc-83845

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1 Recitals and Purposes 1 .......................................................................................................

1.1 Purpose 1 .................................................................................................................

1.2 Parties’ Intent 1 .........................................................................................................

1.3 Coordination ..........................................................................................................1

1.4 Habitat ...................................................................................................................1

1.5 Mitigation ...............................................................................................................2

1.6 Integrity and Viability of NBHCP ............................................................................2

1.7 Reliance.................................................................................................................2

1.8 Local Land Use Authority.......................................................................................2

1.9 City, Sutter and TNBC as Permittees ....................................................................2

1.10 USFWS Authorities ................................................................................................2

1.11 CDFG Authorities...................................................................................................2 2 Definitions ...................................................................................................................3

3. Obligations of the Parties ..................................................................................................3

3.1 City and Sutter .......................................................................................................3

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas ..............................................................................................3

3.1.2 Exclusion of Development from Swainson’s Hawk Zone...........................4

3.1.3 Timing of Mitigation....................................................................................4

3.1.4 Baseline Map .............................................................................................4

3.1.5 Restriction on Urban Development/Mitigation Alternatives........................4

3.1.6 Determination of Compliance.....................................................................4

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Conditions......................................................4

3.1.8 Full Compliance with the NBHCP ..............................................................5

3.1.9 Transfer of Mitigation Fees ........................................................................5

3.1.10 Enforcement...............................................................................................5

3.1.11 Relationship of TNBC to City and Sutter....................................................5

3.1.12 Certification of Urban Development Permittee...........................................6

3.1.13 Public Works Projects ................................................................................6

3.1.14 Assistance ..................................................................................................6

3.1.15 Annual Report of Authorized Development................................................6

3.1.16 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................6

3.1.17 Overall Program Review/Independent Mid-Point Reviews ........................6

3.1.18 City and Sutter Liaison...............................................................................6

3.1.19 Implementation of other NBHCP Components ..........................................6

3.2 The Natomas Basin Conservancy .........................................................................7

3.2.1 Establish Mitigation ....................................................................................7

3.2.2 Acceptance of Mitigation Fees...................................................................7

3.2.3 TNBC Land Management; Site Specific Management
Plan/NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plans/Surveys
....................................7

3.2.4 Implementation Annual Report ..................................................................7

3.2.5 Implementation Annual Meeting ................................................................7

3.2.6 Funding ......................................................................................................7

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning.............................................................................7

3.2.8 Successor ..................................................................................................8 wc-83845

3.2.9 Transfer to CDFG ......................................................................................8

3.2.10 Operation in Perpetuity ..............................................................................8

3.2.11 Conflicts of Interest ....................................................................................8

3.2.12 TNBC Proceedings Open to Public............................................................8

3.2.13 Implementation of Other NBHCP Components .........................................8

3.3 USFWS..................................................................................................................8

3.3.1 Oversight....................................................................................................8

3.3.2 Technical Assistance .................................................................................9

3.3.3 Newly Listed Uncovered Species ..............................................................9

3.3.4 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits...............................9

3.3.5 Permit Findings ..........................................................................................9

3.4 CDFG ...................................................................................................................9

3.4.1 Oversight..................................................................................................10

3.4.2 Assistance ................................................................................................10

3.4.3 New Species ............................................................................................10

3.4.4 CDFG Land Management........................................................................10

3.4.5 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit ..........................10

3.4.6 Section 2081(b) Permit Findings..............................................................10 4 Mitigation .................................................................................................................11

4.1 Mitigation Lands...................................................................................................11

4.2 Respective Permit Areas .....................................................................................11

4.3 Existing Development Exempt.............................................................................11

4.4 Mitigati on Ratio....................................................................................................11

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development Projects................................................................................................................11

4.6 Satisfaction of Mitigation Requirement ................................................................12

4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands........................................................................................13

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes ....................................................................................13

4.9 Funding for Operating Conservation Program.....................................................13

4.9.1 Mitigation Fees.........................................................................................13

4.9.2 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Operating Conservation Program Other than Changes to the Managed Marsh Component ...................................................................13

4.9.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Changes to the Managed Marsh Component ..........................................14

4.9.4 Fee Adjustments for General Inflation .....................................................15

4.9.5 Failure to Adjust Mitigation Fees..............................................................15 5 Mitigation Lands ..............................................................................................................15

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands ................................................................................15

5.2 Setbacks and Buffers...........................................................................................15

5.3 In -Basin Acquisition .............................................................................................15

5.4 Coordinating Mitigati on Land Acquisition with Agency Acquisitions ....................15

5.5 Timing of Mitigation Land Acquisition ..................................................................16

5.6 Acquisition of 400 and 2,500-Acre Blocks ...........................................................16

5.7 Accounting for Mitigation Lands...........................................................................16

5.7.1 Managed Marsh .......................................................................................16

5.7.2 Rice Land.................................................................................................16

5.7.3 Uplands....................................................................................................16

5.7.4 Proportion of Mitigation Lands as Marsh .................................................16

5.8 Conservation Measures.......................................................................................17 iii
wc-83845

6 Assurances .................................................................................................................17

6.1 USFWS................................................................................................................17

6.1.1 No Surprises Assurances ........................................................................17

6.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)............................................................18

6.1.3 Beneficial Effects with Respect to Future Listings ...................................19

6.1.4 Critical Habitat..........................................................................................19

6.1.5 ESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species ................................19

6.2 CDFG .................................................................................................................19

6.2.1 CESA Compliance ...................................................................................19

6.2.2 Adequate Mitigation under CESA ............................................................19

6.2.3 Assurances ..............................................................................................19

6.2.4 CESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species..............................20

6.2.5 Changed Conditions ................................................................................20

6.3 Limits on Future Revisions to NBHCP.................................................................20

6.4 Reservation of Rights Re: Subsequent Listing of Species ..................................21

6.5 Land Use Authority ..............................................................................................21

6.6 No Liability ...........................................................................................................21 7 Amendments and Remedies ...........................................................................................21

7.1 Revisions and Amendments to the NBHCP ........................................................21

7.2 Amendments to Agreement .................................................................................21

7.3 Land Use Changes..............................................................................................21

7.4 Remedies in General...........................................................................................22

7.5 Third Party Enforcement......................................................................................22

7.6 Suspension or Revocation...................................................................................22

7.6.1 Suspension or Revocation by USFWS ....................................................22

7.6.2 Suspension or Revocation by CDFG .......................................................22

7.6.3 Status of Urban Development Permittees after Suspension or Revocation ...............................................................................................22

7.6.4 No Further Approvals by Permittees........................................................22

7.6.5 Severability ..............................................................................................23 8 Miscellaneous .................................................................................................................23

8.1 Term of Agreement..............................................................................................23

8.2 Termination..........................................................................................................23

8.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent ...............................................................23

8.2.2 Termination by USFWS or CDFG............................................................23

8.2.3 Termination by TNBC ..............................................................................23

8.2.4 Effect of Termination................................................................................23

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Termination ..........................................24

8.3 Binding Effect.......................................................................................................24

8.4 Notices.................................................................................................................24

8.5 Captions...............................................................................................................25

8.6 Counterparts........................................................................................................25

8.7 Governing Law.....................................................................................................25

8.8 Complete Agreement...........................................................................................25

8.9 Federal Section 7 Consultations..........................................................................25

8.10 Conflict with NBHCP............................................................................................26

8.11 Other Permittees..................................................................................................26

8.12 Federal Appropriations ........................................................................................26

8.13 State Appropriations ............................................................................................26

8.14 References to Regulations ..................................................................................26 iv
wc-83845

8.15 Applicable Laws...................................................................................................26

8.16 No Partnership.....................................................................................................26

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit ............................................................................26 v
wc-83845

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Definitions
Exhibit B - CITY’s Baseline Map
Exhibit C - SUTTER’s Baseline Map
Exhibit D - List of Covered Species in Permit Area
vi
wc-83845

IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE

NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

THIS IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN is entered into as of the _____ day of _______________, 2003 by and among the UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, an agency of the Department of the Interior of the United States of America (“USFWS”), the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, a subdivision of the Resources Agency of the State of California (“CDFG”), the CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a chartered city (“CITY”), the COUNTY OF SUTTER (“SUTTER”), a political subdivision of the State of California, and The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Inc. (“TNBC”, or “Conservancy”), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, (hereafter collectively referred to as “Parties”). The CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are hereafter also referred to collectively as “Permittees” and each is individually referred to as “Permittee.”

1. RECITALS AND PURPOSES
The Parties have entered into this Agreement in consideration of the following facts and assumptions, intentions and expectations:

1.1 Purpose. This Implementation Agreement (“Agreement”) describes the mechanisms for implementation of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“NBHCP” or “Plan”) a cooperative federal, state and local program for the conservation of those plant and animal species listed on Exhibit D (collectively the “Covered Species”) and their habitats in the Natomas Basin.

The purposes of this Agreement are: a) to ensure the implementation of each of the terms of the NBHCP; b) to describe remedies and recourse should any party fail to perform its obligations as set forth in this agreement; and c) to provide assurances to the Permittees that as long as the terms of the NBHCP are properly implemented, no additional mitigation will be required of them except as provided for in this Agreement or required by law. This Agreement also establishes terms and conditions that support issuance of Permits by the USFWS under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and CDFG under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code to allow the taking of the Covered Species within the Permit Area a) by the CITY and SUTTER, and third persons under the CITY’s and SUTTER’s direct control, incidental to Authorized Development and b) by TNBC, and third persons under TNBC’s direct control, incidental to management activities for a period of fifty (50) years.

1.2 Parties’ Intent. The intent of the Parties, in addition to the purposes set forth above, is that a comprehensive conservation program be established, and be implemented under the auspices of TNBC for the conservation of the Covered Species and their habitats, to provide an opportunity for individual Authorized Development project proponents to obtain incidental take authorization, through CITY’s and SUTTER’s Take Permits, for a broad array of Covered Species under the ESA and CESA including both currently listed species and species that may be listed in the future; to minimize the review of individual projects by the USFWS and CDFG; and to standardize take mitigation and onsite take avoidance and minimization measures for projec ts
covered by the NBHCP.

1.3 Coordination. The NBHCP will be implemented by the Parties through execution of this Agreement, subject to and in accordance with the Permits.

1.4 Habitat. The Covered Species may use or inhabit portions of the Natomas Basin area which is situated northeasterly of the confluence of the American River and Sacramento River.

Consequently, Planned Development of 17,500 acres, including CITY and SUTTER Authorized Development and Metro Air Park’s 1,983 acres of authorized development, related infrastructure, and government public works planned in this area over the next fifty (50) years may result in a loss 1 wc-83845

of habitat and takings of the Covered Species, incidental to the normal course of this Planned Development.

1.5 Mitigation. Implementation of the NBHCP through this Agreement is intended to avoid, minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable, and minimize and fully mitigate, the individual and cumulative impacts of take of Covered Species resulting from Authorized Development within the CITY’s and SUTTER’s respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. All required mitigation is specified in the NBHCP.

1.6 Integrity and Viability of NBHCP. While the NBHCP was developed as a comprehensive multi-species habitat conservation plan to avoid, minimize and mitigate for the expected loss of habitat values and incidental take of the Covered Species that could result from urban development, operation and maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems, and certain activities associated with TNBC management of its system of reserves within the Natomas Basin when it is fully implemented, the biological viability of the NBHCP is not compromised by the failure of other Potential Permittees to participate in the NBHCP and execute this Agreement. The mitigation strategies provided in the NBHCP are designed to allow for separate and independent implementation of NBHCP mitigation measures by CITY, SUTTER or other Potential Permittees, and may be adjusted under the terms of the Plan if fewer than all land use jurisdictions or other Potential Permittees participate, so that the NBHCP is viable and will minimize and mitigate the impacts associated with take of Covered Species resulting from Covered Activities carried out within the Natomas Basin by each Permittee, even if the Plan is not implemented by other Potential Permittees.

1.7 Reliance. In reliance upon this Agreement, CITY and SUTTER are making long range plans and financial investments in public infrastructure improvements necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. Without the assurances identified in this Agreement, they would not enter into, support or approve any such plans or financial commitments.

1.8 Local Land Use Authority. The parties to this Agreement intend that nothing in the NBHCP or in this Agreement shall be interpreted to mean or operate in a manner that expressly or impliedly diminishes or restricts the local land use decision making authority of CITY or SUTTER, provided that the Parties acknowledge that should either CITY or SUTTER exercises its respective land use authority in a manner that conflicts with the terms of the NBHCP, this Agreement or the Permits, the Service and/or CDFG may suspend or revoke CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits pursuant to Section 7.4 of this Agreement and applicable laws and regulations.

1.9 CITY, SUTTER and TNBC as Permittees. This Agreement also establishes the conditions under which the incidental take granted to CITY and SUTTER under their respective Permits will apply to landowners and developers within their respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin as of the Effective Date (as depicted on Exhibits B and C attached hereto and incorporated herein) in order to allow the taking of the Covered Species incidental to Authorized Development. TNBC’s Permit will authorize incidental take of the Covered Species by TNBC anywhere within its Permit Area with respect to the management and other activities and responsibilities that TNBC or third parties under its control assumes on behalf of CITY and SUTTER under the NBHCP.

1.10 USFWS Authorities. USFWS is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the United States Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742(f) et seq.).

1.11 CDFG Authorities. CDFG is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to CESA sections 2080 and 2081.
2 wc-83845

AGREEMENT
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the recitals set forth above, which are incorporated by reference herein, the covenants set forth herein, and other considerations, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
2 DEFINITIONS
Terms used in this Agreement with reference to the ESA shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA, or in regulations adopted by the USFWS, and terms used in this Agreement with reference to CESA, shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under CESA, or regulations adopted by CDFG. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the defined meanings specified in the NBHCP as attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein into this Agreement. Where additional terms are used in this Agreement, definitions are included within the applicable text. Any amendments to the definitions contained in this Agreement shall be deemed automatically to be amendments to the definitions contained in the NBHCP.
3 OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES

3.1 CITY and SUTTER.

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas. The NBHCP anticipates and analyzes a total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin, 15,517 acres of which constitutes Authorized Development within CITY and SUTTER. (An additional 1,983 acres of development is allocated to the Metro Air Park project in Sacramento County under the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan and is analyzed within the NBHCP.) CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized De velopment and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement). SUTTER agrees not to approve more than 7,467 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to SUTTER’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit C to this Agreement). The Parties further agree:
(a) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating
Conservation Program is based upon CITY limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the CITY’s Permit Area, and SUTTER limiting total development to 7,467 acres within SUTTER’s Permit Area, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development within the Plan Area or outside of their respective Permit Areas would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program. Thus, CITY and SUTTER further agree that in the event this future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits in the event the CITY or SUTTER violate such limitations.
(b) For purposes of the NBHCP and this Agreement, CITY agrees that although the West Lakeside Annexation area is proposed by the landowners to be annexed to the CITY, this area currently is located within Sacramento County and is outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary and the City’s Sphere of Influence, and it is not included in the 8,050 acres of Authorized Development or within the CITY’s Permit Area. Thus, CITY agrees that in the event this annexation occurs, it shall, prior to approval of any rezoning or prezoning associated with such annexation, trigger a reevaluation of the Plan, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the City for that additional urban development, and/or possible 3 wc-83845

suspension or revocation of CITY’s Permit in the event the CITY violates such limitations without completing such reevaluation, amendment, or revision or new conservation strategy for that additional urban development.

3.1.2 EXCLUSION OF DEVELOPMENT FROM SWAINSON’s HAWK ZONE. With the exception of 252 acres included as Authorized Development by CITY in the NBHCP, the Parties agree that the CITY’s and SUTTER’s Permit Areas shall exclude a one mile wide strip of land adjacent to the Sacramento River within their respective jurisdictions known as the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (SHZ). The Parties further agree as follows:
(a) CITY and SUTTER shall not approve any future urban
development within their respective portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone beyond the 252 acres of Authorized Development identified by CITY in the NBHCP. (b) Within One Hundred and Eighty (180) days of the Effective Date, SUTTER shall initiate a General Plan Amendment to remove all land within SUTTER’s portion of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone from the Industrial/Commercial Reserve designation in the Sutte r County General Plan and to redesignate such land for agricultural uses. (c) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP to adequately minimize and mitigate the effects of take of the Covered Species depends, in part, on the exclusion of urban development from both the CITY and SUTTER’s portions of the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, except as otherwise explicitly allowed under the NBHCP, would constitute a significant departure from the Plan and would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments to the Plan and/or Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or possible suspension or revocation of CITY or SUTTER’s Permits in the event CITY or SUTTER violate such restrictions.

3.1.3 Timing of Mitigation. CITY and SUTTER agree to comply with the NBHCP Chapter VI requirements applicable to the timing of acquisition of Mitigation Lands, including, but not limited to, the requirement to maintain a 200-acre cushion of Mitigation Lands, and other timing restrictions on approval of Authorized Development as provided in Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.4 Baseline Map. CITY and SUTTER have prepared, and USFWS and CDFG have approved, the Baseline Maps set forth in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which depict: (1) those land areas within their respective Permit Areas which are designated as “Exempt Area-Existing Development” and therefore not subject to the NBHCP, the Permits, or this Agreement; (2) those land areas designated as “Development Subject to 1997 HCP,” within their respective Permit Areas for which Authorized Development projects have been approved between 1997 and 2002 and have been developed in compliance with the Mitigation Requirements of the NBHCP in effect in 1997; and (3) those undeveloped land areas designated as “Development Subject to 2002 HCP,” within the Permit Areas which will be subject to the Mitigation Requirement of the NBHCP.

3.1.5 Restriction on Urban Development/Mitigation Alternatives. CITY and SUTTER shall not issue any Urban Development Permit for any Authorized Development project on a parcel of land in their respective Permit Areas, outside of those areas depicted as “Exempt Area- Existing Development” on the Baseline Map, unless the Authorized Development project proponent has satisfied the Mitigation Requirement specified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.6 Determination of Compliance. CITY and SUTTER shall ensure that an Authorized Development project proponent has complied with the Mitigation Requirements of Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP prior to issuing an Urban Development Permit for the Authorized Development project.
4 wc-83845

3.1.7 Urban Development Permit Conditions. CITY and SUTTER shall include in any Urban Development Permit the on-site Take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures specified in Chapter V of the NBHCP (the “Conservation Measures”) to reduce or eliminate to the extent feasible, the direct and indirect impacts of Authorized Development on the Covered Species and shall include in such Urban Development Permit notice of the need to comply with the requirements of other agencies applicable to the project.

3.1.8 Full Compliance with the NBHCP. The Parties agree that for purposes of CITY’s and SUTTER’s determination that an Urban Development Permittee is in full compliance with the NBHCP, the Urban Development Permittee must: (1) comply with the Mitigation Requirement, (2) implement the Conservation Measures including any such measures that are required to be conducted prior to commencement of grading and/or construction (e.g., pre- construction surveys, species avoidance measures, allowing USFWS or TNBC to conduct transplantation and relocation of Covered Species, etc.), and (3) implement any measures specified in or provided for in Chapter V of the NBHCP which are required to be implemented after commencement of grading and/or construction, including but not limited to, pre- construction surveys, retention of Swainson’s Hawk nesting trees, and elderberry shrub preservation.

3.1.9 Transfer of Mitigation Fees. CITY and SUTTER shall promptly transfer all Mitigation Fees collected on account of Authorized Development to TNBC in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

3.1.10 Enforcement. CITY and SUTTER shall comply with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits and, following their applicable land use permit enforcement procedures and practices, shall take all necessary and appropriate actions to enforce the terms of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, the Section 2081 Permit, the NBHCP, and this Agreement as to themselves and all third persons subject to their jurisdiction or control, including Urban Development Permittees, that are subject to the requirements established by the NBHCP, the Permits and this Agreement, specifically including the urban permitting and approval requirements set forth in this Section 3.

Provided CITY and SUTTER take actions within their respective authorities to enforce compliance with the terms of the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits, a violation of the Permits by such third persons shall not be a basis to suspend or revoke the CITY or SUTTER Permits, unless USFWS or CDFG determine that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild or USFWS or CDFG determine that the violation renders CITY or SUTTER unable to implement successfully the NBHCP.

3.1.11 Relationship of TNBC to CITY and SUTTER. To comply with the requirements of the NBHCP, CITY and SUTTER have chosen to implement their Mitigation Requirement and other obligations under the NBHCP, including their reporting and monitoring obligations, in part, through the selection of TNBC as the Plan Operator. The Parties further agree:
(a) In the event that the Service determines pursuant to Section

7.6.1 of this Agreement, or CDFG determines pursuant to Section 7.6.2 that TNBC has violated the terms of the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall be considered a failure by CITY and SUTTER to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP. Provided, however, that if the violation by TNBC related to MAP mitigation acquisition or management requirements, or to other violations resulting from and solely pertaining to a violation of the MAP HCP, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply and neither City nor Sutter shall be considered to have failed to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP.
(b) Notwithstanding the foregoing in the event USFWS or CDFG make the determination set forth in Section 3.1.11(a), CITY’s and SUTTER’s Permits shall not be revoked or suspended, if CITY and/or SUTTER implement corrective measures, within the period 5 wc-83845

specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG, to remedy TNBC’s violation which may include, but shall not be limited to (1) replacing TNBC with another conservation entity qualified to serve as a Plan Operator, (2) transferring the Mitigation Lands to CDFG in accordance with Section 3.2.12 of this Agreement, (3) implementation by TNBC of measures specified by the USFWS and/or CDFG as necessary to remediate the violation unless USFWS or CDFG determine that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild or USFWS or CDFG determine that the violation renders CITY or SUTTER unable to implement successfully the NBHCP; or (4) implementation by CITY and/or SUTTER of measures necessary to remediate the violation.
(c) Should the USFWS or CDFG determine that CITY or SUTTER has violated their separate obligations under the NBHCP, the Permits or this Agreement, such violation shall not be attributed to TNBC nor shall TNBC’s Permits be affected, so long as TNBC continues to properly implement its obligations under the NBHCP with respect to the Mitigation Lands, including its obligations as the Plan Operator.

3.1.12 Certification of Urban Development Permittee. Urban Development Permits (i.e., the grading permit or notice to proceed) issued by CITY and SUTTER shall constitute a certification to the Urban Development Permittee that the Urban Development Permittee has complied with the Mitigation Requirements of the NBHCP and will be allowed to construct, maintain and operate a public or private project which may result in the Incidental Take of the Covered Species consistent with the conditions in the Permits and the Urban Development Permit, on the parcels for which the Urban Development Permit was issued. The issuance of such certifications shall be considered ministerial actions for the purposes of the laws of the State of California.

3.1.13 Public Works Projects. CITY and SUTTER shall apply the Mitigation Requirement and Conservation Measures set forth in this Section and in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP to all public works projects in their respective Permit Areas.

3.1.14 Assistance. CITY and SUTTER shall provide staff members to serve on the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee.

3.1.15 Annual Report of Authorized Development. CITY and SUTTER shall each implement the Annual Report requirements described at Chapter VI of the NBHCP. In addition, at any other time during the Permit terms, CITY and SUTTER, at the request of USFWS or CDFG, shall provide within thirty (30) days, to the Wildlife Agencies additional information relevant to implementation of the NBHCP reasonably available to CITY and SUTTER.

3.1.16 Adaptive Management. CITY and SUTTER agree to abide by and implement all Adaptive Management provisions specified in, and subject to the limitations of, Chapter VI of the NBHCP, including, but not limited to, implementing revisions to management of Mitigation Lands, such as those which may be included in recovery plans for the Covered Species, in response to monitoring results in the Plan Area or to peer-reviewed new scientific information, in response to substantial land use changes in the Basin outside the Permit Areas and system of reserves, and Plan responses to Changed Circumstances.

3.1.17 Overall Program Review/Independent Midpoint Reviews. CITY and SUTTER agree to implement the Overall Program Review and Independent Mid-Point Reviews described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the NBHCP in achieving its biological goals and objectives.

3.1.18 CITY and SUTTER Liaison. CITY and SUTTER shall each designate a liaison to CDFG and USFWS for communications concerning this Agreement and the NBHCP. The CITY’s and SUTTER’s liaisons shall be responsible for reporting on their respective agency’s implementation of and compliance with this Agreement, the NBHCP, and the Permits. CITY and SUTTER shall notify CDFG and USFWS of the name, address and telephone number of the liaison within 30 days of the Effective Date and shall subsequently notify CDFG and USFWS within 30 days in writing if the name, address or telephone number of the liaison is changed. 6 wc-83845

3.1.19 Implementation of other NBHCP Components. CITY and SUTTER agree to implement each of the other components of the NBHCP identified in the Plan or this Agreement, specifically including enactment of and periodic revisions to the Mitigation Fee ordinances and Catch Up Fee ordinances or through other funding mechanisms except for the CITY or SUTTER general funds, as described in Chapter VI of the Plan as necessary to ensure the NBHCP is fully funded. The commitments set forth herein shall be subject to the limitation that implementation of such measures is within the CITY’s or SUTTER’s land use or other legal authority.

3.2 The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

3.2.1 Establish Mitigation. TNBC agrees that it will serve as the Plan Operator under the NBHCP, and will Acquire, locate, operate, manage, and maintain Mitigation Lands in accordance with Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and Section 5 of this Agreement. To the extent provided in the NBHCP, such activities shall be carried out in consultation with the TAC and with the approval of the Wildlife Agencies.

3.2.2 Acceptance of Mitigation Fees. TNBC agrees that it will accept Mitigation Fees from CITY and SUTTER and use them exclusively to implement its Acquisition, management, monitoring, reporting and other responsibilities identified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP.

3.2.3 TNBC Land Management; Site Specific Management Plan/NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plans/Surveys. TNBC agrees that it shall be responsible for implementing the following management obligations within its Permit Area:
(a) TNBC, in consultation with the TAC and subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies as provided in the NBHCP, shall prepare a Site Specific Management Plan for each Mitigation Land site acquired by TNBC under the Plan. Each Site Specific Management Plan shall be completed in accordance with the timing requirements specified in Chapter IV and VI, of the NBHCP and shall contain each of the elements described in Chapters IV and VI, E. of the NBHCP. TNBC agrees to implement the Site Specific Management Plans in accordance with the NBHCP and upon approval.
(b) TNBC, in consultation with the TAC and subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies as provided in the NBHCP, shall prepare an overall Biological Monitoring Plan consistent with the provisions of Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Upon approval, TNBC agrees to implement the overall NBHCP Biological Monitoring Plan in accordance with the NBHCP. (c) TNBC shall conduct annual surveys of the Covered Species on Mitigation Lands and periodic surveys of the Covered Species throughout the Plan Area as provided in the NBHCP, the Site Specific Management Plans and Plan-wide Biological Monitoring Plan.

3.2.4 Implementation Annual Report. TNBC shall provide the Parties with an Implementation Annual Report by May 1 of each calendar year the NBHCP is in effect. The Implementation Annual Report shall include all of the information identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, including the results of the Compliance Monitoring implemented by CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and the Effectiveness Monitoring implemented by TNBC during the prior calendar year, and provide an accounting of all Mitigation Fees collected, all Urban Development Permits Issued, and all Mitigation Lands Acquired.

3.2.5 Implementation Annual Meeting. On or before July 1 of each calendar year each Permittee, USFWS and CDFG shall meet to discuss the Implementation Annual Report submitted by the TNBC, and any concerns, comments or recommendations any of the Parties may have regarding implementation of the NBHCP.

3.2.6 Funding. At least annually, TNBC shall evaluate the adequacy of Mitigation Fees to fund implementation of the NBHCP and shall recommend to CITY and SUTTER adjustments to the Mitigation Fee as necessary to ensure the Plan is fully implemented.

3.2.7 Budgeting and Planning. Prior to the end of each calendar year, the TNBC 7 wc-83845

shall prepare a budget and a plan for its proposed activities for the forthcoming year and provide copies to each Permittee, CDFG and USFWS.

3.2.8 Successor. With the prior written approval of CITY, SUTTER, USFWS and CDFG, the assets and obligations of TNBC may be transferred to any other non-profit corporation provided that the successor corporation assumes each of the obligations of TNBC as set forth under the NBHCP the TNBC Permit, and this Agreement.

3.2.9 Transfer to CDFG. In the event TNBC is unable to meet its financial obligations and is dissolved, becomes insolvent or goes bankrupt, and no other suitable successor is found, then the ownership of the Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements), accumulated Mitigation Fees and other sums designated for enhancement and maintenance of those lands, shall be transferred to the CDFG or a non-profit association or corporation organized for conservation purposes that is approved by USFWS, CDFG, CITY and SUTTER, which shall hold the Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements ) in perpetuity and use the Mitigation Fees for the acquisition and permanent management, operation, maintenance, monitoring, and conservation of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with the NBHCP. In the event the ownership of Mitigation Lands (including conservation easements), accumulated Mitigation Fees and other sums designated for enhancement and maintenance of those lands are transferred to CDFG, CDFG shall have the authority to seek adjustments to the Mitigation Fee consistent with the provisions of the NBHCP.

3.2.10 Operation in Perpetuity. Subject to the requirements of Chapters IV and VI of the NBHCP, Mitigation Lands acquired to meet the NBHCP’s Mitigation Requirement shall function in perpetuity to provide Habitat Values for the Covered Species. TNBC shall establish a sufficient endowment from the endowment components of the Mitigation Fees adopted by CITY and SUTTER to permanently sustain management of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with the NBHCP following expiration or termination of the Permits.

3.2.11 Conflicts of Interest. TNBC shall establish and maintain by-laws which include, at a minimum, restrictions on interests in contracts by Board members and employees which are at least as stringent as those applied to government officers and employees by California Government Code §1090 and following, as well as restrictions on participation in decisions and requirements of financial disclosure which are at least as stringent as those applied to government officers and employees by the Political Reform Act of 1974 and any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.

3.2.12 TNBC Proceedings Open to Public. TNBC agrees that its actions and proceedings shall be conducted in public, in a manner consistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code Sections 54950, et seq. TNBC may conduct closed sessions for real estate negotiations as permitted in its Bylaws, referenced in the NBHCP, as may be amended from time to time (“TNBC Bylaws”). Pursuant to the TNBC Bylaws, the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act regarding the disclosure of information with respect to real property transactions (including, but not limited to Government Code Sections 54954.5(b), 54956.8 and 54957.1(a)(1)), whether such transactions are pending or completed, shall not apply. As used herein, “real property transactions” shall include options to purchase or lease, purchases, and leases of real property, as well as farming contracts affecting real property that TNBC has acquired or is in negotiations to acquire.

3.2.13 Implementation of Other NBHCP Components. TNBC shall implement each of the other components of the NBHCP identified in the Plan or this Agreement, including but not limited to the conservation strategies and Take avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, to the extent such measures fall under its authority and control.

3.3 USFWS.

3.3.1 Oversight. After issuance of each Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, the USFWS shall monitor the implementation of such Permit, this Agreement, and each Permittee’s activities thereunder, to ensure compliance with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits. 8 wc-83845

3.3.2 Technical Assistance. Subject to Section 8.12 of this Agreement, the USFWS shall provide staff to serve on the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), sh all provide responses to TNBC as required under the NBHCP in a timely manner, and recommend, as appropriate, revisions to the NBHCP under the Plan’s Adaptive Management, Overall Program and Independent Mid-Point Reviews, and other applicable provisions, to ensure the viability of the Plan.

USFWS shall also make available USFWS staff for informal consultations and meetings with the staffs, boards or councils of the Permittees to assist with implementation of the NBHCP. Consistent with its legal authorities, the USFWS shall cooperate with TNBC in obtaining additional funding from sources including, but not limited to, existing and future state and federal grant programs and bond issues to augment the conservation strategies of the NBHCP. Such funds are in addition to, and not in substitution of, the funding required to implement the NBHCP as described in this Agreement.

3.3.3 Newly Listed Uncovered Species. Coverage and authorization for Take of newly listed species which are not covered under the Permits shall require amendment of the NBHCP and the Permits. Until and unless the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits are amended to cover the newly listed species, the Permittees shall adhere to the Changed Circumstances provisions applicable to the listing of a new species as described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Modification of the NBHCP as necessary to amend the Permits to authorize take of new species not previously covered by the NBHCP shall be at the discretion of all parties to the NBHCP, this Agreement and the associated Permits.

3.3.4 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 10(a) Permits. (a) For purposes of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, as to each Land Use Agency Permittee, the USFWS and TNBC, the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date, following execution of this Agreement by that Land Use Agency Permittee, the USFWS and TNBC, that the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits are issued to that Land Use Agency Permittee and TNBC.
(b) Following execution of this Agreement, the Service will issue a Section 10(a) Permit to each signatory Permittee authorizing the Take of each listed Covered animal Species incidental to the Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits.
(c) For Covered animal Species not listed as an endangered species or threatened species under ESA as of the Effective Date, the Section 10(a) Permits shall become effective as to each such species concurrent with the listing of the species as a threatened species or endangered species under the ESA. The NBHCP also covers seven (7) plant species.

Take of listed plants is not prohibited under the ESA and therefore will not be authorized under the Section 10(a) Permits. Plants are included as Covered Species under the NBHCP and will be listed on the federal permits in recognition of the conservation measures provided for them under the NBHCP. Plant species covered under the NBHCP will also be provided assurances under the federal “No Surprises” rule.

3.3.5 Permit Findings. USFWS, based on the best scientific and commercial data available and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) The Taking of Covered Species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities.
(b) Implementation of the NBHCP by the Permittees will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the Incidental Take of Covered Species.
(c) CITY and SUTTER will ensure that adequate funding for the NBHCP will be provided and the NBHCP and this Agreement provide procedures for addressing Changed Circumstances and Unforeseen Circumstances.
(d) The Take of Covered Species in accordance with this 9 wc-83845

Agreement will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Covered Species in the wild.
(e) The measures agreed upon by the Permittees and the
USFWS for purposes of the NBHCP will be met.
(f) Through this Agreement, the USFWS has received the
required assurances that the NBHCP will be implemented.

3.4 CDFG.

3.4.1 Oversight. After issuance of the Section 2081 Permit to CITY and SUTTER, CDFG shall monitor the implementation of the Section 2081 Permit, this Agreement and TNBC’s activities thereunder, including but not limited to, the modification, enhancement, operation and maintenance of the Mitigation Lands in order to ensure compliance with this Agreement and consistency with CDFG’s trustee agency duties pursuant to CESA, and recommend any amendments to the NBHCP CDFG deems desirable, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, under the Plan’s Adaptive Management provisions as described in Chapter IV, Section E of the NBHCP or the Overall Program Review as described in Chapter IV, Section I of the NBHCP.

3.4.2 Assistance. CDFG shall provide staff to serve on the NBHCP TAC, and shall ensure the availability of its staff for informal consultations and meetings with TNBC and the staffs, boards or councils of the other Parties to this Agreement to ensure the appropriate monitoring of permitted activities which may lead to the Incidental Take of State Protected Species. CDFG will assist TNBC (to the extent authorized by the California Legislature) in obtaining additional funding from sources including, but not limited to, existing and future state and federal grant programs and bond issues to augment the conservation strategies of the NBHCP. Such funds are in addition to, and not in substitution of, the funding required to implement the NBHCP as described in this Agreement.

3.4.3 New Species. CDFG shall make available to Permittees information it has or acquires regarding new sightings or occurrences of any species in the Permit Areas which is state listed as threatened or endangered, is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered, or is otherwise likely to be state listed, and which is determined to be dependent upon habitat in the Permit Area, if such species is not otherwise described in Exhibit D hereof. Once a year, upon the request of TNBC, CDFG shall provide TNBC with updated information from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) covering new sightings and occurrences of any species not otherwise described in Exhibit D within the Permit Areas. At the same time, CDFG may propose any amendments to the NBHCP CDFG deems reasonably necessary to preserve Habitat Values for the benefit of such species.

3.4.4 CDFG Land Management. CDFG shall manage in perpetuity, in a manner consistent with the NBHCP, for the conservation of the Covered Species any Mitigation Lands conveyed to it by TNBC pursuant to the terms and provisions of this Agreement.

3.4.5 Effective Date and Issuance of Section 2081(b) Permit. (a) For purposes of the Section 2081(b) Permit, as to each Land Use Agency Permittee, CDFG and TNBC, the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date, following execution of this Agreement by that Land Use Agency Permittee, CDFG and TNBC, that the Section 2081(b) Permits are issued to that Land Use Agency Permittee and TNBC. (b) Following execution of this Agreement, CDFG will issue a Section 2081(b) Permit or modification to an existing Permit to each Permittee authorizing the Take of each Covered Species incidental to Covered Activities, subject to and in accordance with the NBHCP and this Agreement.
(c) As to each Covered Species that is not currently listed under CESA, the Incidental Take Authorization under the Section 2081(b) Permits shall become effective consistent with Section 6.2.4 of this Agreement.
10 wc-83845

3.4.6 Section 2081(b) Permit Findings.

CDFG, based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available, and the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the NBHCP, has found that with respect to the Covered Species:
(a) Incidental Take. The authorized Take of Covered Species will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
(b) Minimize and Fully Mitigate. The impacts of the authorized Take will be minimized and fully mitigated.
(c) Roughly Proportional. The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will be roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the authorized Take of Covered Species.
(d) Applicant’s Objectives. The measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take will preserve Permittee objectives to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the obligation to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take.
(e) Capable of Successful Implementation. All required measures will be capable of successful implementation.
(f) Adequate Funding. Permittees have ensured adequate
funding to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures, and for monitoring compliance with, and effectiveness of, those measures.
(g) No Jeopardy. The issuance of the Section 2081(b) Permits will not jeopardize the continued existence of any Covered Species. (h) Unlisted Species. Covered Species that are not currently listed as threatened or endangered under CESA have been treated in the NBHCP as if they were listed, and the NBHCP identifies measures to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized Take of such unlisted species. The findings in this Section 3.4.5 apply to all Covered Species, including Covered Species that are not listed. 4 MITIGATION

4.1 Mitigation Lands. Mitigation Lands will be established and managed pursuant to the NBHCP.

4.2 Respective Permit Areas. Developers of all lands within the respective Permit Areas that are developed pursuant to an Urban Development Permit, shall provide mitigation pursuant to the NBHCP for the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of development upon Covered Species and their habitat. CITY and SUTTER shall require an Urban Development Permittee to provide mitigation for the conversion of land to Authorized Development in the respective Permit Areas, in conformity with the NBHCP and the following sections.

4.3 Existing Development Exempt. Parcels of land within the respective Permit Areas that are shown as “Exempt Area-Existing Development” and “Development Subject to 1997 HCP” on the Baseline Maps depicted on Exh ibits B and C of this Agreement are not covered by the NBHCP, this Agreement, or the Permits, provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to exempt such existing development from any applicable requirements of the ESA or CESA.

4.4 Mitigation Ratio. Mitigation for the conversion of land in the respective Permit Areas to Authorized Development will be required at the ratio of one half (½) acre of land protected or conserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development (the “Mitigation Ratio”).

4.5 Calculation of Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development Projects. The Mitigation Requirement for each public or private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Development (the “Mitigation Requirement”). The 11 wc-83845

land area converted to Authorized Development is determined as follows:
(1) For both private and public development projects, except as provided in (2) and (3) below, the gross area of a particular project is considered “land area converted to Authorized Development” whether the entire project is graded or not. The fees payable shall be calculated by multiplying the Mitigation Fees (in dollars per acre) times the land area converted to Authorized Development, prorated for fractional acres.
(2) For private development projects, a separate parcel or portion of a parcel which will be transferred to a public agency for a public use consisting of a park, school or other public building, is exempt. The M itigation Requirement for such uses must be satisfied when the parcel of public use property is developed by the respective public agency owning the parcel. With respect to other lands designated for public use, the following criteria will apply: (a) Roads: where a road is included within the respective Land Use Agency’s finance plan for purposes of financing, the land transferred or to be transferred by fee or easement to the agency for the road project is excluded; where a road is not one which is financed pursuant to the agency’s finance plan, but is to be paid for entirely by the private landowner or developer of the project, even though ultimately it will be dedicated to the agency, the land transferred or to be transferred to the agency for the road is included; (b) Utilities: where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the respective Land Use Agency or another public entity (e.g., Sacramento Municipal Utility District), by easement or fee, land for a structure such as a pump station, outfall station, or similar structure, such land is excluded; where the landowner or developer is required to transfer to the agency non- exclusive easements for utility lines (water lines, sewer lines, and similar lines), the land covered by such easements is included; if the easement is exclusive, the land covered by the easement is excluded, but the transferee agency will be required to provide mitigation upon development of the transferred parcel. With respect to each parcel or portion of a parcel exempted or excluded pursuant to this section, the Mitigation Requirement shall be satisfied by CITY or SUTTER at the time such parcel or portion of land is converted to Authorized Development. (3) For both private and public projects, excluded is any parcel or portion of the parcel approved as Mitigation Land by TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies in accordance with the NBHCP and which will be transferred in fee to TNBC or will be encumbered by a Conservation Easement in favor of TNBC for purposes of satisfaction of the Mitigation Requirement for the particular development project.

4.6 Satisfaction of Mitigation Requirement. The Land Use Agency Permittes each retains authority to require an Urban Development Permittee/landowner to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement by: (1) payment of the Mitigation Fees; or (2) subject to the approvals required by the NBHCP, transfer of Mitigation Land to TNBC, together with payment of all components of the Mitigation Fee except the Land Acquisition Fee as specified in the NBHCP. C redit against the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees is based on the number of acres of land being transferred and is not based on cost or perceived value of the land transferred. Where a Land Use Agency Permittee elects to require an Urban Development Permittee to transfer land to TNBC, (1) TNBC and the Wildlife Agencies must approve the transfer of each parcel of Mitigation Land considering its location, proximity to urban uses and roads, current land condition, and all other factors specified in the NBHCP, and (2) such land must be dedicated prior to authorization by the applicable Land Use Agency Permittee for dissturbance of the land resulting from the associated Urban Development Project. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is less than the Mitigation Land required for the public or private project, the landowner is obligated to pay the outstanding balance of the Land Acquisition Fee component of the Mitigation Fees. If the amount of land transferred to TNBC is greater than the amount of Mitigation Land required for the development project, the landowner may choose one of the following credit options: (i) receive credit from the excess amount of land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for future Authorized Development of property owned by the landowner; or (ii) transfer credit from the excess amount of 12 wc-83845

land toward required Mitigation Land under the NBHCP for Authorized Development of property owned by another specified landowner. If either credit option is chosen, then prior to the transfer of Mitigation Land being finalized, the landowner shall inform CITY or SUTTER, as appropriate and TNBC in writing of the choice to receive or transfer credit and to whom the credit is to be transferred. Any transfer of fee title to lands or a Conservation Easement therein in order to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement shall be accomplished by a deed or grant of a conservation easement to TNBC in a form acceptable to USFWS and CDFG, in recordable form on or before issuance of an Urban Development Permit (i.e., a building permit, grading permit, or other permit which allows a disturbance of the surface of the earth for the public or private project). All land proposed to be transferred to TNBC in satisfaction of the Mitigation Requirement must meet the acquisition criteria specified in the NBHCP.

4.7 Jurisdictional Wetlands. Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve any Urban Development Permittee desiring to discharge any fill or other material into any jurisdictional wetlands, of any requirement to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and comply with all the terms and conditions thereof. Take of Covered Species related to jurisdictional wetlands by the Urban Development Permittee shall be authorized through the incidental take permits issued to CITY and SUTTER and shall be subject to the requirements of the NBHCP.

4.8 Rivers, Streams or Lakes. Nothing in this Agreement shall relieve any Urban Development Permittee desiring to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by the CDFG, or use any material from the streambeds, of any requirement to comply with Fish and Game Code, Division 2, Chapter 6, commencing with Section 1600 (concerning Streambed Alteration Agreements). This Agreement and implementation of the NBHCP are intended to satisfy only site-specific mitigation requirements for impacts of taking Covered Species as a result of an Authorized Development project which may be imposed under Chapter 6 of the California Fish and Game Code, with the exception of mitigation specifically directed at those vernal pool species included on the list of Covered Species.

4.9 Funding for Operating Conservation Program. CITY and SUTTER shall fund the Operating Conservation Program in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

4.9.1 Mitigation Fees. Where an Urban Development Permittee selects payment of Mitigation Fees as its method of satisfying the Mitigation Requirement for the public or private project, the provisions of Section 4 shall govern the calculation and collection of such fees, and such Urban Development Permittee shall pay the Mitigation Fees as so calculated. The amount payable for the Mitigation Fee shall be the amount specified by ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of the CITY or SUTTER, including but not limited to the “catch-up fee” ordinances or other ordinances or resolutions adopted prior to or after the Effective Date.

4.9.2 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for Purposes of Funding the Operating Conservation Program Other than Changes to the Managed Marsh Component. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, upon request of TNBC or upon the written request of USFWS or CDFG as supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and technical analysis, and as otherwise necessary, CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account costs of land acquisition and TNBC operations, to maintain or meet the Mitigation Ratio specified in Section 4.4 of this Agreement, and to meet TNBC management, monitoring, adaptive management, or related costs required to fund the Operating Conservation Program as set forth in Chapters IV, V and VI of the NBHCP. The decision to adjust the Mitigation Fees may include but is not limited to consideration of the following factors: (1) the market price of land being acquired as Mitigation Land; (2) the necessity to maintain the 0.5 to 1 Mitigation Ratio; (3) the need to fund ongoing and permanent management and monitoring costs in accordance with the NBHCP; (4) the necessity to ensure the 13 wc-83845

effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program; and (5) the availability of other sources of revenues, including the sale of hunting rights on Mitigation Lands, proceeds from the cultivation of rice on Mitigation Lands and other funds and grants. (a) Notwithstanding the foregoing and in accordance with, an d subject to the limitations of, Chapter VI of the NBHCP, CITY or SUTTER shall be obligated to increase the Mitigation Fees to fund recommended changes to the Operating Conservation Program resulting from future recovery plans, monitoring results from the Plan Area or peer- reviewed new scientific information relevant to the Plan only when such recommendations:
(1) Relate to the physical management of Mitigation
Lands;
(2) Would improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s
Operating Conservation Program by identifying relevant new information, approaches, techniques, or species protection needs;
(3) Can be implemented within the NBHCP Plan Area; and
(4) Fit within the overall intent and framework, are
consistent with the NBHCP’s biological goals and objectives and would not exceed the established Mitigation Ratio of the NBHCP; and
(5) Would not substantially sacrifice habitat values for Covered Species that are not addressed by the recovery plan, the monitoring results or other peer- reviewed new scientific information.
(b) Adjustment of the Mitigation Fees pursuant to this subsection is independent of adjustments made on account of inflation/deflation pursuant to Section 4.9.4 of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or otherw ise affect the discretionary authority of the Land Use Agencies with respect to fee adjustments under this Section

4.9.1. 4.9.3 Adjustments to the Mitigation Fee for purposes of Funding the Changes to the Managed Marsh Component. Upon written notification supported by documented evidence in the form of a written report and technical analysis by USFWS or CDFG to CITY and SUTTER of the adoption of a future Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or peer-reviewed new scientific information indicating an adjustment in the enhancement and management activities for managed marsh as specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the CITY and SUTTER shall review, and at the discretion of each, adjust the Mitigation Fees to take into account increased costs of TNBC’s enhancement and management of a higher proportion of managed marsh on Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the final Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan by the USFWS, the availability of peer-reviewed new scientific information or monitoring results from the Plan Area indicate an adjustment in the enhancement and/or management activities for managed marsh is warranted as specified and subject to the limitations contained in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The obl igation to adjust the Mitigation Fees shall be subject to the following limitations set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP:
(b) the obligation to increase the Mitigation Fees shall be applied prospectively to future Mitigation Lands acquired after adoption of the Recovery Plan, in response to monitoring results from the Plan Area or in response to peer-reviewed new scientific information. (c) if the Recovery Plan, monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, or peer-reviewed new scientific information indicate a higher proportion of managed marsh (1) will improve the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program to meet its biological goals and objectives, (2) is beneficial to the snake, and (3) will not adversely affect any other listed Covered Species.
(d) the maximum levels of managed marsh which may apply to future Mitigation Land acquisitions which occur after the results of monitoring from the Plan Area or 14 wc-83845

peer-reviewed new scientific information, or Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan adoption shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of such Mitigation Lands.

Adjustment of the Mitigation Fees pursuant to this subsection is independent of adjustments made on account of inflation/deflation pursuant to Section 4.9.4 of this Agreement. (Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to diminish or otherwise affect the discretionary authority of the Land Use Agencies with respect to fee adjustments under this Section 4.9.2.)

4.9.4 Fee Adjustments for General Inflation. On or before January 1 of each year, CITY and SUTTER shall review and, at the discretion of each, adjust the dollar amount of the Mitigation Fees (as adjusted from time to time pursuant to Section 4.4.1), to take into account the effects of inflation/deflation generally. Adjustments will be calculated as follows: the current Mitigation Fee shall be multiplied by the index for October of the year prior to January 1, divided by the index for October of the preceding year [e.g., 2003 Fee = 2002 Fee x (October, 2002 CPI Index/October, 2001 CPI Index)]. For purposes of making this adjustment, the index utilized shall be the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, All Items, San Francisco– Oakland–San Jose (1982-1984=100), as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, or its successor. Technical adjustments made pursuant to this Section 4.9.4 shall be independent of, in addition to and not a part of adjustments to, the Mitigation Fee adjustments made pursuant to Section 4.9.2 and 4.9.3.

4.9.5 Failure to Adjust Mitigation Fees. CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that the failure of either CITY or SUTTER to adjust the Mitigation Fees as necessary to maintain the Mitigation Ratio and ensure implementation of each of the other requirements of the NBHCP identified in Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and/or in this Section 4 may result in suspension or revocation of their respective Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement. 5 Mitigation Lands

5.1 Location of Mitigation Lands. TNBC shall locate Mitigation Lands in accordan ce with Chapters IV through VI of the NBHCP and this Section.

5.2 Setbacks and Buffers. All Mitigation Lands Acquired by TNBC shall conform to the buffer and setback requirements set forth in Chapters IV and VI of the NBHCP.

5.3 In-Basin Acquisition. All Mitigation Lands shall be acquired within the Natomas Basin as provided in the NBHCP.

5.4 Coordinating Mitigation Land Acquisition With Agency Acquisitions. Prior to the Acquisition of any parcel of Mitigation Land, TNBC shall provide written notice to the USFWS, CDFG, and both CITY and SUTTER of its intent to Acquire such lands. USFWS and CDFG agree that they will not knowingly interfere or compete with TNBC for the Acquisition or control of such lands and that they will consult with TNBC in formulating any Acquisition plans. As to those lands identified by USFWS or CDFG for acquisition, TNBC, likewise, shall not knowingly interfere with or compete with the affected agency for acquisition or control until TNBC is notified by that agency that it is no longer pursuing acquisition or control of the lands. 15 wc-83845

5.5 Timing of Mitigation Land Acquisition. TNBC shall comply with the requirements of the NBHCP relating to the Acquisition of Mitigation Lands in advance of approval of Authorized Development set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. The Parties further agree that in order to ensure that Mitigation Lands are Acquired in an amount sufficient to meet the Mitigation Requirement that attaches to all Authorized Development under the NBHCP, TNBC shall establish a 200 acre cushion of Mitigation Lands prior to the approval of any Authorized Development by CITY or SUTTER under the Plan and shall maintain the 200 Acre Mitigation Land cushion until the approval of the last 400 acres of Authorized Development under the Plan. CITY, SUTTER and TNBC shall implement this requirement in accordance with the NBHCP, as follows. (a) No Urban Development Permits for Authorized Development shall be issued by CITY or SUTTER after September 30 of each calendar year until TNBC notifies CITY and SUTTER that it has Acquired Mitigation Lands which equal the number of acres necessary to meet the Mitigation Requirement attached to all prior Urban Development Permits issued by CITY and SUTTER plus an additional 200 acres of Mitigation Land. (b) Because TNBC is responsible for Acquiring Mitigation Lands for Planned Development, TNBC will credit mitigation fees collected under the Metro Air Park HCP (MAP HCP) along with all Mitigation Fees collected by CITY and SUTTER for Authorized Development. The collection of Mitigation Fees for Planned Development will be credited against the Mitigation Lands Acquired by TNBC, in chronological order, with priority given to the oldest project among those approved under the MAP HCP and the CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits to have paid Mitigation Fees.

5.6 Acquisition of 400 and 2,500-Acre Blocks. TNBC shall comply with those provisions of the NBHCP relating to Acquisition of Mitigation Lands to ensure that the Mitigation Lands are consolidated in minimum 400-acre habitat blocks and at least one 2,500 acre habitat block prior to the expiration of the Permits. The 400 acre minimum block requirement and the 2,500 acre minimum block requirement shall be applied in the aggregate to all Permittees and to all ot her approved HCPs in the Natomas Basin that are based on the NBHCP, so that the plans as a whole must achieve the identified habitat block consolidation requirements set forth in the NBHCP upon Plan completion. Notwithstanding the above, CITY and SUTTER each retain the independent obligation to provide 400 acre minimum blocks and one 2,500 acre minimum block prior to the date their respective Permits expire in the event the other Permittees cease participation in the NBHCP, or in the event the Potential Permittees choose not to participate in the NBHCP. None of the provisions contained herein shall be construed to prohibit the USFWS or CDFG from authorizing Mitigation Land acquisitions that do not comply with the minimum 400-acre minimum block size in the event that TNBC identifies potential Mitigation Lands which otherwise provide opportunities for the preservation of important biological resources.

5.7 Accounting for Mitigation Lands

5.7.1 Managed Marsh. Mitigation Lands acquired and converted to and managed as seasonal or perennial marsh, and existing marsh lands acquired by TNBC and managed as seasonal or perennial marsh, will count fully toward the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section

4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.2 Rice Land. Mitigation Lands in current rice production as Rice Lands will count fully toward the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section 4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.3 Uplands. Mitigation lands providing upland habitats will count fully towards the 0.5:1 Mitigation Ratio described in Section 4.4 of this Agreement.

5.7.4 Proportion of Mitigation Lands as Marsh. Within three years of the approval of a Site Specific Management Plan a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands must be in managed marsh as specified in the NBHCP. Thereafter, a minimum of 25 percent of the Mitigation Lands shall be in managed marsh until and unless that amount is increased up to a maximum of 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands in accordance with Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI 16 wc-83845

of the NBHCP. Pursuant to Section 4.9.3 of this Agreement and Chapter VI of the NBHCP, any increase in the amount of Mitigation Lands required to be in managed marsh shall apply only to Mitigation Lands Acquired to satisfy the Mitigation Requirement for Authorized Development which are acquired after the USFWS or CDFG provide written notice and its accompanying documentation of Recovery Plan adoption, the availability of monitoring results from the Plan Area, or the availability of credible scientific information collected in the Plan Area. Provided the Wildlife Agency’s requested increase in managed marsh complies with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the failure of TNBC to adopt the increase in managed marsh as requested by either Wildlife Agency shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and possible suspension or revocation of the CITY and SUTTER’s Permits as set forth under Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

5.8 Conservation Measures. CITY and SUTTER shall include in each Urban Development Permit the Conservation Measures provided in Chapter V of the NBHCP. 6 ASSURANCES

6.1 USFWS

6.1.1 No Surprises Assurances.
(a) Unforeseen Circumstances. As provided in 50 C.F.R. 17.3, the term “Unforeseen Circumstances” shall mean changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that could not reasonably have been anticipated by the plan developers and USFWS at the time of the Plan’s negotiation and development, and that results in a substantial and adverse change in the status of a Covered Species. (1) “No Surprises” Assurances. Pursuant to the No
Surprises Rule at 50 C.F.R. Sections 17.3, 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), and provided that CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP, USFWS shall not require CITY, SUTTER or TNBC to provide additional land, water or other natural resources, or financial compensation or additional restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources beyond the level provided for under the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits with respect to Covered Activities under the Permits without the consent of CITY or SUTTER. However, nothing in this Section or in the Assurances Rule shall be interpreted: (1) to restrict the authority of USFWS to take appropriate action under the ESA or applicable regulations to ensure that the NBHCP is properly implemented in accordance with this Agreement; (2) to apply to future Adaptive Management modifications for Mitigation Lands that are deemed necessary or appropriate by the USFWS or CDFG as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP and in consultation with CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, to respond to the results of monitoring in the Plan Area, or to new scientific information relevant to the NBHCP, (3) to apply to future modifications to the NBHCP as a result of future recovery plans as determined in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, (4) to apply to the NBHCP responses to Changed Circumstances identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, or (5) to apply to changes anticipated to occur as a result of the Urban Development activities anticipated by the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, Section 2081(b) Permit, or as otherwise approved by the USFWS, provided that such actions, modifications and changes comply with the limitations and restrictions set forth in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. If USFWS makes a finding of unforeseen circumstances, during the period necessary to determine the nature and location of additional or modified mitigation, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC will avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species and ensure that third persons under their control that are carrying out Covered Activities avoid contributing to appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the affected species. (2) Unforeseen Circumstances Finding. In the event that USFWS believes that Unforeseen Circumstances may exist in accordance with the “No Surprises” rule, it shall notify CDFG, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC in writing of the applicable specific facts described in Section 6.1.1 above. In the notification, USFWS shall clearly document the basis for 17 wc-83845

the proposed finding regarding the existence of Unforeseen Circumstances in accordance with the requirements of 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C). Within fifteen (15) days of receiving such notice, CITY, SUTTER and TNBC, USFWS and CDFG shall meet to consider the facts cited in the notice and potential changes to the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program or management and operation of the Mitigation Lands. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(5)(iii)(C) and

17.32(b)(5)(iii)(C), USFWS shall make an Unforeseen Circumstances finding based on the best scientific evidence available, after considering any responses submitted by any other Parties pursuant to this section, and USFWS shall have the burden of demonstrating that Unforeseen Circumstances exist.
(3) Effect of Unforeseen Circumstances Finding. Pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5), in the event that USFWS makes a finding of Unforeseen Circumstances and additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to such Unforeseen Circumstances, USFWS may require additional measures from CITY, SUTTER or TNBC where the NBHCP is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within the Mitigation Lands and the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program for the affected species and maintain the original terms of the NBHCP to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigati on measures shall not involve the commitment of additional land, water or other natural resources without the consent of CITY and SUTTER. (b) Changed Circumstances.
(1) Changed Circumstances Defined. As provided in 50
C.F.R. 17.3, the term “Changed Circumstances” means changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that can reasonably be anticipated by CITY, SUTTER or TNBC and that can be planned for in the NBHCP (e.g. the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.) Changed circumstances and planned responses to those circumstances are described in Chapter VI of the NBHCP. (2) Permittee-Initiated Response to Changed
Circumstances. CITY, SUTTER or TNBC, as a ppropriate, will immediately notify USFWS and all other Permittees upon learning that any of the Changed Circumstances listed in Chapter VI of the NBHCP has occurred, and shall provide written notice within seven (7) days . Permittees shall modify their activities and shall require third persons under the Permittees’ control to modify their activities, as appropriate, in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, to the extent necessary and feasible to minimize and mitigate the effects of the Changed Circumstances. CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and will report to USFWS on their actions. Such modifications will be initiated without awaiting notice from USFWS. Such changes are provided for in the NBHCP, and hence do not constitute unforeseen circumstances or require amendment of Permits or the NBHCP. (3) USFWS-Initiated Response to Changed
Circumstances. If USFWS determines that Changed Circumstances have occurred and that CITY, SUTTER or TNBC have not responded in accordance with Chapter VI of the NBHCP, the USFWS in coordination with CDFG will so notify CITY, SUTTER and TNBC and, as appropriate, direct them to make the required changes. Within thirty (30) days after receiving such notice, CITY, SUTTER or TNBC, as appropriate, will make the required changes and report to USFWS on their action. Such changes are provided for in the NBHCP, and hence do not constitute unforeseen circumstances or require amendment of Permits or of the NBHCP.

6.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). If during the term of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, an avian Covered Species which is protected under the MBTA is listed under the ESA, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits will also constitute Special Purpose Permits under 50 C.F.R. Section 21.27 for the “take” (for purposes of this Section, as that term is understood under the MBTA) of those Covered avian Species which are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA and which are also protected by the MBTA. The take of such species in conjunction with any Authorized Development Project, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the NBHCP and 18 wc-83845

CITY’s, SUTTER’s or TNBC’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, will not be in violation of the MBTA.

Such Special Purpose permits shall be valid for a period of three years from the date the species is listed under the ESA provided that City's, Sutter's, or TNBC's Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit, as applicable, remains in effect for that period. Such Special Purpose Permit will authorize take of any avian Covered Species listed under the ESA during the three year Special Purpose Permit term.

Such Special Purpose Permit shall be renewed as to each Permittee, provided that each Permittee continues to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. Each such renewal shall be valid for the maximum period of time allowed by 50 C.F.R. Section 21.27 or its successor at the time of renewal.

6.1.3 Beneficial Effects With Respect to Future Listings. To the extent permitted by the ESA and consistent with the provisions of the NBHCP, the USFWS shall consider the NBHCP and this Agreement in any future determination by the USFWS with regard to the listing of one or more of the currently unlisted Covered Species as an endangered species or threatened species pursuant to the ESA.

6.1.4 Critical Habitat. The USFWS further agrees that it will consider the NBHCP in its preparation of any proposed designation of critical habitat concerning any Covered Species and agrees that, consistent with 50 C.F.R. 424.12, the NBHCP incorporates those special management considerations necessary to manage the Covered Species and their habitats in a manner that will provide “for the conservation of the species involved” within the CITY, SUTTER’s and TNBC’s respective Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. Consistent with the No Surprises Rule set fort h in Section 6.1.2(a), in the event that a critical habitat designation is made for any Covered Species and upon a determination that CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP, no additional mitigation in the form of land, land restrictions or financial compensation, beyond that required by the NBHCP, shall be required of any Permittee in connection with Urban Development in its Permit Area as a result of such critical habitat designation without the consent of that Permittee.

6.1.5 ESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species. In the event that one or more of the Covered animal Species that are not currently listed as an endangered species or threatened species are so listed pursuant to the ESA, the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Urban Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is listed provided the CITY, SUTTER and TNBC are properly implementing the NBHCP. The Parties expressly acknowledge that it is the intent of this Agreement that the Mitigation Lands will be administered so as to conserve and enhance the habitat values for all listed and unlisted Covered Species reasonably expected to be found in Natomas Basin , to the extent provided for in the NBHCP.

6.2 CDFG

6.2.1 CESA Compliance. CDFG shall consider adherence to the terms of this Agreement to be compliance with the CESA and the California Native Plant Protection Act for the impacts of Authorized Development on State Protected Species in the Permit Area. Take of Fully Protected Species is not authorized by this Agreement.

6.2.2 Adequate Mitigation Under CESA. CDFG shall consider adherence to the terms of the Section 2081 Permit, the NBHCP and this Agreement to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts associated with the Incidental Take of State Protected Species in the Permit Areas as authorized by the Section 2081 Permit and this Agreement pursuant to CESA.

6.2.3 Assurances. Except as otherwise required by law, no further mitigation from Urban Development Permittees and/or CITY and SUTTER consisting of land, additional land restrictions, or financial compensation beyond that described herein and provided for in the NBHCP, will be required by CDFG to address the impacts of Authorized Development within the respective Permit Areas on the State Protected Species, Covered Species which become listed in the future as State-protected species, or their habitats pursuant to the CESA. 19 wc-83845

6.2.4 CESA Listing of Currently Unlisted Covered Species. In the event that one or more of the Covered Species that are not State Protected Species are listed as an endangered species or threatened species or candidate species pursuant to the CESA (“Additional State Protected Species”), the Section 2081 Permit shall become effective to permit the Incidental Take of such species in connection with Authorized Development within each Permittee’s Permit Area as of the date the species is accepted and designated as a candidate species pursuant to California Fish and Game Code section 2074.2, upon confirmation by CDFG that substantial evidence demonstrates that the Section 2081 Permit will continue to meet the standards in California Fish and Game Code Section 2081(b) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 783,4 for the Additional State Protected Species. In the event CDFG determines that such standards will not be met, and the Section 2081 Permit does not become effective upon the designation of an Additional State Protected Species as a candidate, threatened, or endangered species under CESA, CDFG shall accept and give due consideration to the minimization and mitigation measures in the NBHCP and this Agreement in support of an application for a permit amendment or for a separate Section 2081 Permit authorizing Incidental Take of any such Additional State Protected Species. CDFG shall make reasonable efforts to review and process the application for an amendment to the Section 2081 Permit or a new Section 2081 Permit to authorize Incidental Take of an Additional State Protected Species to ensure, to the extent consistent with CESA, that the Incidental Take authorization is effective at the time the Covered Species is accepted and designated as a candidate species under CESA.
(a) The Parties expressly acknowledge that it is the intent of this Agreement that the Mitigation Lands will be administered so as to enhance their Habitat Values for all the Covered Species reasonably expected to be found in the Permit Areas. (b) To the extent permitted by the CESA, the CDFG shall consider the NBHCP and this Agreement in any future determination by the CDFG with regard to the listing of one or more of the currently unlisted Covered Species as an endangered species or threatened species pursuant to the CESA.

6.2.5 Changed Conditions. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “Changed Conditions” shall have the same meaning as expressed in CESA and its related implementing regulations in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 783.0. Prior to making a finding of Changed Conditions, CDFG shall provide notice to CITY, SUTTER, TNBC and other Parties hereto of any proposed amendments to this Agreement which CDFG proposes to remedy the Changed Condition. CDFG shall, to the extent feasible, meet with CITY, SUTTER, TNBC, and other Parties hereto at least ninety (90) days prior to making a finding of Changed Conditions to provide such parties with an opportunity to submit their comments and suggested revisions to the proposed amendment.

6.3 Limits on Future Revisions to NBHCP. The Parties acknowledge that the NBHCP expressly provides for revisions to the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program and Mitigation Lands as a result of monitoring results collected from the Plan Area, peer-reviewed new scientific information, or future recovery plans for the Covered Species, as part of the Adaptive Management program, in response to Changed Circumstances and for any other cause identified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP, provided that such revisions comply with Chapter VI of the NBHCP. Such revisions are provided for under the Plan and are therefore not subject to the restrictions on additional Mitigation contained in USFWS’s No Surprises Rule or agreed to by CDFG, nor do such revisions require amendment of the Plan or the Permits. Notwithstanding the above, such revisions shall be subject to the following limitations unless such limitations are waived in writing by CITY, SUTTER and TNBC.
20 wc-83845

(a) The modifications shall not require more than 75 percent of the Mitigation Lands to be converted to or maintained as managed marsh; and (b) The modifications shall not require the Mitigation Ratio to be greater than 0.5 acre mitigation to 1.0 acre development. (c) The modifications shall comply with the requirements, limitations and restrictions specified in Chapter VI of the NBHCP.

6.4 Reservation of Rights Re: Subsequent Listing of Species. This Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights or objections that any of the Parties hereto or Urban Development Permittees may have with respect to the proposed listing of any Candidate Species under the ESA or CESA or of any of the other Covered Species described in this Agreement. The Permittee and the Urban Development Permittees reserve their right to oppose any formal listing of any Candidate Species or other Covered Species pursuant to the ESA or CESA. Likewise, nothing in this Agreement is intended, nor shall be construed to limit the authority of USFWS or CDFG to enforce or otherwise carry out their respective responsibilities under the federal or state Endangered Species Acts and other applicable federal and state laws.

6.5 Land Use Authority. Nothing in the NBHCP or in this Agreement shall be interpreted or operate in a manner that expressly or impliedly diminishes or restricts the local land use authority of CITY and SUTTER. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they have chosen to implement several of the commitments made by them under the NBHCP through the exercise of their respective land use authorities. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to exercise their land use authorities in a manner consistent with their obligations under the NBHCP could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and their respective Permits and could result in suspension or revocation of such Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

6.6 No Liability. All Parties hereto agree that under no circumstances shall CITY, SUTTER and TNBC have any liability whatsoever for any debts, liabilities or financial obligations incurred by another Permittee under the NBHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they are obligated under their Permits to fully implement the NBHCP, including funding each of the obligations assigned to TNBC as the Plan Operator under the NBHCP. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to fully fund TNBC’s obligation under the Plan could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and CITY, SUTTER and TNBC’s respective Permits and could result in suspension of revocation of such permits pursuant to Section 7.6 of this Agreement.
7 AMENDMENTS AND REMEDIES

7.1 Revisions and Amendments to the NBHCP. Revisions to the NBHCP shall be implemented in accordance with Chapter VI of the Plan. Revisions shall not require Amendment of the Plan or Permits. Amendments to the NBHCP shall require amendment of the Permits and shall be processed in accordance with the amendment provisions of Chapter VI of the Plan and all applicable laws and regulations.

7.2 Amendments to Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by written document signed by all of the Parties.

7.3 Land Use Ch anges. The Parties to this Agreement agree that the adoption and amendment of General Plans, Specific Plans, Community Plans, zoning ordinances and similar ordinances, and the granting of implementing land use entitlement by CITY or SUTTER pertaining to land in their respective Permit Areas, shall be matters within the sole discretion of CITY and SUTTER, and shall not require amendments to this Agreement or the approval of the other Parties to this Agreement. No such action by CITY or SUTTER shall in any way alter or diminish its obligations under this Agreement and the NBHCP. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentences, CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that they have chosen to implement several of the commitments made 21 wc-83845

by them under the NBHCP through the exercise of their respective land use authorities. Therefore, a failure of CITY or SUTTER to exercise their land use authorities in a manner consistent with their obligations under the NBHCP could compromise the effectiveness of the Plan, would trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and their respective Permits and could result in suspension or revocation of such Permits as set forth in Section 7.6 of this Agreement.

7.4 Remedies in General. The Parties acknowledge that each of the Covered Species is unique and that the loss of any of the Covered Species would be irreparable and that therefore injunctive and/or temporary relief may be appropriate in certain circumstances involving a breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Parties shall not be liable in monetary damages to any Party or any person for any breach of this Agreement, in the performance or failure to perform a mandatory or discretionary obligation imposed by this Agreement, or any other cause of action arising from this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing, the Parties shall have all of the remedies available in equity (including specific performance and injunctive relief) and at law to enforce the terms of this Agreement and the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit and Section 2081 Permit and to seek remedies for any breach thereof, consistent with and subject to the terms of this Agreement. It is expressly understood by the Parties that monetary damages will not provide an adequate remedy for material breach of this Agreement.

7.5 Third Party Enforcement. This Agreement shall not create in the public, any member of the public, or any other person or entity, including any Urban Development Permittee, any rights under this Agreement, nor shall it authorize anyone not a signatory to this Agreement to maintain a suit (1) in equity or law to enforce the terms of this Agreement and/or the NBHCP, Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 Permit, or (2) for compensation or damages under the provisions of the Agreement, NBHCP, or Permits.

7.6 Suspension or Revocation.

7.6.1 Suspension or Revocation by USFWS. The Parties acknowledge that the USFWS has the authority to suspend or revoke any of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, in whole or in part, in the event of a material violation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit and pursuant to any applicable federal laws or regulations that govern the permitted activity. The regulations found at 50 C.F.R. §§13.27 - 13.29 and 17.22(b)(8), or any successor regulations, shall govern the suspension or revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit issued by the USFWS.

7.6.2 Suspension or Revocation by CDFG. The Parties acknowledge that CDFG shall have the authority to suspend or revoke the Section 2081 Permit in the event of a material breach or violation of the Section 2081 Permit or any applicable California laws or regulations governing the permitted activity.

7.6.3 Status of Urban Development Permittees after Suspension or Revocation.

Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation of a Permittee’s Permit, CITY and SUTTER shall remain liable under this Agreement to carry out all of their responsibilities under the Permits and this Agreement arising from any Authorized Development approved, authorized, or carried out by CITY or SUTTER, within their respective Permit Areas between the Effective Date of the Agreement and the date a Permittee’s Permit is suspended or revoked. As to any Authorized Development project approved or authorized by CITY or SUTTER prior to the Permit suspension or revocation and that is in compliance with the Permit, but as to which construction activity has not commenced as of the suspension or revocation, so long as CITY or SUTTER and the Urban Development Permittee, if any, continue to fulfill their obligations under the Permit, the Permit shall continue in effect for that Authorized Development project until that project is completed.

7.6.4 No Further Approvals by Permittees. Subject to the provisions of section

7.6.3 above, if a Permit is suspended or revoked, CITY and SUTTER shall not have the authority to rely upon the Permit to approve or carry out any actions that would violate the ESA or CESA in the absence of such Permit. Notwithstanding the suspension or revocation, CITY and SUTTER shall remain fully liable under the Permits and this Agreement to carry out all of their responsibilities, 22 wc-83845

including the Mitigation Requirement, under the NBHCP, the Permits and this Agreement arising from Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out by an Urban Developm ent Permittee within the respective Permit Areas between the Effective Date and the date the Permit is suspended or revoked.

7.6.5 Severability. The violation by CITY or SUTTER of their respective Permits shall not adversely affect or be attributed to, nor shall it result in the loss or diminution of any right, privilege or benefit under a Permit held by a non-responsible Permittee. Nor shall CITY and SUTTER be deemed to have violated the Permits solely as a consequence of the actions of an Urban Development Permittee or other third person subject to CITY’s or SUTTER’s jurisdiction and control, so long as CITY or SUTTER takes all necessary and appropriate steps, if any are available, to halt and correct the violation in accordance with this Agreement and consistent with their police powers and local land use authority. However, the violation by TNBC of its Permits shall be considered a failure by CITY and SUTTER to implement their obligations of the Operating Conservation Program under the NBHCP. In such event, CITY and SUTTER’s Permits shall not be revoked or suspended, if CITY and/or SUTTER implement corrective measures in accordance with Section 3.1.11 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, to the extent that action or inaction by a Permittee, an Urban Development Permittee or other third party subject to CITY’s or SUTTER’s jurisdiction and control, or TNBC prevents proper implementation of the NBHCP or compliance by one or more of the remaining Permittees with their Permits or results in a determination by the USFWS or CDFG that continuation of the Permits would appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of a Covered Species in the wild, such Permits may be suspended or revoked in accordance with applicable USFWS and CDFG regulations.

7.6.6 Validity of Permits. In the event a court of competent jurisdiction invalidates either City, County’s or TNBC’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) or Section 2081 Permits with regard to one or more Covered Species, other than the Giant garter snake or Swainson’s hawk, such action shall not be construed to invalidate the permits with regard to the remaining Covered Species. The requirements of the State and Federal Incidental Take Permits and the NBHCP shall continue to be implemented by each Permittee with regard to the remaining Covered Species. 8 MISCELLANEOUS

8.1 Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of fifty (50) years from the Effective Date.

8.2 Termination

8.2.1 Termination by Mutual Consent. CITY or SUTTER may, by mutual agreement with the Wildlife Agencies, terminate this Agreement as to itself. In the event that such mutually agreed-upon termination occurs, a written termination agreement shall be executed to ensure that the mitigation required under the NBHCP and this Agreement for all Authorized Development approved, authorized or carried out prior to termination is carried out. Upon execution of such agreement and surrender of the Permits to the Wildlife Agencies, no further take shall be authorized under the terms of the surrendered Permits.

8.2.2 Termination by USFWS or CDFG. The USFWS or CDFG may terminate this Agreement upon revocation of the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or the Section 2081 Permit in accordance with Section 7.6.

8.2.3 Termination by the T NBC. The TNBC may terminate voluntarily its participation under this Agreement only if it has an agreement to do so with the CITY, SUTTER, USFWS and CDFG. Any agreement allowing TNBC to terminate its participation and its status as Plan Operator, shall contain provisions for assuring that the provisions of the NBHCP will be implemented.

8.2.4 Effect of Termination. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the USFWS or CDFG with respect to a Permittee, that Permittee’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or 23 wc-83845

Section 2081 Permit, as applicable, shall, subject to Section 8.2.1 above, be void. CITY and SUTTER acknowledge that, although the NBHCP Operating Conservation Program would mitigate for effects resulting from the Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities, because the percentage of uplands to wetlands differs between their respective Permit Areas, the NBHCP allows for the Operating Conservation Program provided for under the NBHCP to be reevaluated and revised in the event either CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits are terminated or revoked to ensure that the configuration of Mitigation Lands provided for under the NBHCP continues to adequately mitigate for the impacts of Authorized Development in the remaining jurisdiction.

8.2.5 Status of Mitigation Lands Upon Termination. The Mitigation Lands are to be established in perpetuity. Management of the Mitigation Lands by TNBC in accordance with the NBHCP shall continue in perpetuity, notwithstanding termination, suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit or Section 2081 Permit for any reason, unless the suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits is due to a violation by TNBC of its Permits. TNBC’s management activities shall be funded from the Mitigation Fees collected on account of past Authorized Development under the Permits which includes endowment components to fund permanent management. None of the assets of the TNBC, including lands or interests in land may be transferred, conveyed, or assigned to any person or entity, except as specified in Sections 3.2.11 and Section 3.2.12 of this Agreement. However, take previously authorized through Urban Development Permits or for public or private projects for which the Mitigation Requirement was been completed or is otherwise assured shall continue to be authorized. In the case of the federal Permit, upon notification from the Service that implementation of all minimization and mitigation measures identified in the termination agreement have been implemented, the permit shall be deemed canceled.

8.3 Binding Effect. The terms, provisions and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

8.4 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing, shall be deemed made upon receipt, and shall be given by personal delivery or by certified mail/return receipt requested, addressed to the Parties as follows:

City of Sacramento
915 I Street, Room 109
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: City Manager
County Administrative Officer
County of Sutter
1160 Civic Center Blvd., Ste. A
Yuba City, CA 95993
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of the Regional Director
Portland, OR 97232
with a copy to:

Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
3310 El Camino Avenue, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 95821-6340
24 wc-83845

California Department of Fish and Game Office of the Director 1416 9th Street, 12th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
with copies to:

General Counsel
California Department of Fish and Game
1416 9th Street, 12th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
and to:

Regional Manager
California Department of Fish and Game
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
The Natomas Basin Conservancy
1750 Creekside Oaks Dr., Suite 290
Sacramento, CA 95833
Attn: Executive Manager
Any Party may give notice to the others specifying a different address for notice purposes.

8.5 Captions. The headings of the various sections hereof are for convenience only, and shall not affect the meaning of any provisions of this Agreement.

8.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

8.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the ESA, the CESA, and other applicable state and federal laws. In particular, nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the authority of USFWS to fulfill its responsibilities under the ESA or CDFG under CESA or other applicable law, including but not limited to seeking penalties against CITY, SUTTER or TNBC. Moreover nothing in this agreement is intended to limit the legal responsibilities of USFWS as an agency of the federal government or CDFG as an agency of the State of California.

8.8 Complete Agreement. This Agreement, together with the NBHCP, constitutes the full and complete agreement between the Parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings, whether oral or written, all of which shall be deemed to have been merged herein, it being the intention of the Parties that this be a completely integrated agreement. Specifically, this Agreement shall supercede the Implementation Agreement executed in December, 1997.

8.9 Federal Section 7 Consultations. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to eliminate or modify the obligation of a federal agency to consult with the USFWS pursuant to section 7(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)). To the maximum extent appropriate, in any consultation 25 wc-83845

under said provision involving CITY or SUTTER or a prospective or other Urban Development Permittee with regard to Covered Species, the USFWS shall ensure that the biological opinion issued in connection with the proposed public or private Project which is the subject of the consultation is consistent with the biological opinion issued in connection with the NBHCP, provided that the proposed public or private Project is consistent with the NBHCP. Any biological measures included under the terms and conditions of the Section 7 biological opinion shall, to the maximum extent appropriate, be consistent with the Mitigation Requirement imposed by CITY or SUTTER under the NBHCP as implemented by this Agreement, provided that, unless otherwise required by law, the USFWS shall not impose additional mitigation measures on the project proponent in excess of those that have been or will be required by the CITY or SUTTER pursuant to the NBHCP, this Agreement and the Permits.

8.10 Conflict with NBHCP. The NBHCP and each of its terms are intended to be, and by this reference are, incorporated herein. In the event of any contradiction, conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and the NBHCP, the terms of this Agreement shall control. In all other cases, the terms of this Agreement and of the NBHCP shall be interpreted to be supplementary to each other. Where interpretation is required, this Agreement shall be interpreted as a vehicle for implementation of the NBHCP.

8.11 Other Permittees. The failure of other Potential Permittees identified in the NBHCP to obtain Permits shall not preclude this Agreement from going into effect within the geographical boundaries of each Permittee , or on lands Acquired by the NBC, nor preclude the issuance of the Permits to such other Potential Permittees or to subsequent signatories of this Agreement.

8.12 Federal Appropriations. USFWS’s commitment to provide technical assistance under the NBHCP and to implement this Agreement, including the assurances provided herein, are subject to the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act and the availability of appropriated funds.

Nothing in this agreement will be construed by the parties to require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the U.S. Treasury. The parties acknowledge that the USFWS will not be required under this Agreement to expend any federal agency’s appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency affirmatively acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.

8.13 State Appropriations. Implementation of this Agreement and the NBHCP and the assurances provided herein, is subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Nothing in this agreement will be construed by the parties to require the obligation, appropriation, or expenditure of any money from the Treasury of the State of California. The parties acknowledge that CDFG will not be required under this Agreement to expend any State of California agency’s appropriated funds unless and until an authorized official of that agency affirmatively acts to commit to such expenditures as evidenced in writing.

8.14 References to Regulations. Any reference in this Agreement, the NBHCP, or the Permits to any regulation or rule of USFWS or CDFG shall be deemed to be a reference to such regulation or rule in existence at the time the action is taken.

8.15 Applicable Laws. All activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, the NBHCP or the Permit must be in compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.

8.16 No Partnership. Neither this Agreement nor the NBHCP shall make or be deemed to make any party to this Agreement the agent for or the partner of any other party.

8.17 Elected Officials Not to Benefit. No member of or delegate to Congress shall be entitled to any share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise from it. 26 wc-83845

EXHIBIT A: DEFINITIONS
NBHCP Definitions
Terms used in the NBHCP and Implementation Agreement shall have the same meaning as those same terms have under the ESA and CESA, except as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein, but which are defined in the Plan, shall have the meanings specified in the Plan.

1. Adaptive Management. The term “Adaptive Management” means a method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable goals and objectives, and then, if necessary adjusting future conservation management actions according to what is learned to achieve those goals and objectives.

2. Amendment. The term “Amendment” shall refer to significant changes to the NBHCP, Implementation Agreement and/or Incidental Take Permit for circumstances as described in Chapter VI, Section 3(b) of the NBHCP. Amendments include activities which are more significant than and different from revisions (see also “Revisions”).

3. Area B (Out of Basin Mitigation Area). Area B shall refer to lands identified on Figure 20 of the HCP in which TNBC may pursue acquisition of Mitigation Lands under the specific terms described in Chapter IV, Section 2.b of the HCP, with approval of USFWS and CDFG.

TNBC shall account for all acreage acquired in Area B to ensure that the total amount of such lands does not exceed 20 percent of the total Mitigation Lands. The additional requirements for acquisition of mitigation lands in Area B (out of basin) apply only to Area B and do not apply to any acquisitions of mitigation lands located within the Natomas Basin or the outer “ring” of the Natomas Basin defined as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of the water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees. (Note: During the final NBHCP approval process by the City Council of the City of Sacramento and the Board of Supervisors of Sutter C o u n ty , a u th o riz a tio n to p u rc h a s e M itig a tio n L a n d s to o ffs e t th e im p a c ts o f d e v e lo p m e n t w a s lim ite d to th e N a to m a s B a s in a n d th e “o u te r” rin g a ro u n d th e le v e e s o f th e N a to m a s B a s in . N o a u th o riz a tio n to p u rc h a s e la n d s to m itig a te im p a c ts o f A u th o riz e d Development in Area B (out of basin) was granted by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors.)

4. Authorized Development. The term “Authorized Development” means that development for which incidental take is authorized for the City of Sacramento and Sutter County under this NBHCP. Authorized Development is limited to a total of 15,517 acres of Planned Development (as further defined below in Section III.A) under the NBHCP. Included within the City’s 8,050 acre portion of the Authorized Development are 28 acres of infrastructure development associated with the Metro Air Park (MAP) project in Sacramento County.

Included within Sutter County’s 7,467 acres of Authorized Development is 16.5 acres of proposed drainage channel improvements located within Sacramento County. Incidental take resulting from the 1,983 acre MAP project, including the 28 acres located in the City of Sacramento, is covered by separate incidental take permits issued by the Wildlife Agencies.

The 15,517 acres of Authorized Development related incidental take within the City and Sutter County combined with the 1,983 acres of development related take within Sacramento County for the MAP project represent a total of 17,500 acres of potential urban development in the Natomas Basin which has been analyzed in the NBHCP as Planned Development, as further defined below. Any development within the City of Sacramento 29 wc-83845

beyond the 8,050 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, within Sutter County, beyond the 7,467 acres to be covered under its incidental take permits, or within Sacramento County beyond the MAP project, will not be covered under the respective incidental take permits and will trigger a reevaluation of impacts to and mitigation for biological and other resources in the Natomas Basin and amendment of the NBHCP and the incidental take permits or development of a new HCP and issuance of new incidental take permits to address such impacts and mitigation as appropriate.

5. Biological Monitoring. The term “Biological Monitoring” means the mandatory element of all HCPs that is designed and implemented to provide the information necessary to assess compliance and project impacts, and verify progress toward the biological goals and objectives for the Plan’s Covered Species and habitats.

6. Biological Monitoring Plan. Refers to specific monitoring requirements to be conducted in the Natomas Basin as specified in Chapter VI, Section E, Subsection 2, and includes both the overall NBHCP Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Program and the Site Specific Biological Monitoring Programs.

7. Changed Circumstances. This term “Changed circumstances” is defined in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by the NBHCP that can reasonably be anticipated by Plan Participants and the USFWS, and that can be planned for (e.g., the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.)” Changed circumstances addressed in NBHCP are outlined in Chapter VI, Section K of the HCP.

8. Compliance Monitoring. The term “Compliance Monitoring” means an itemized, task specific method of verifying that the Permittee is carrying out the terms of the NBHCP, Permit and IA.

9. Conservation Measures. The term “Conservation Measures” means that accepting and conveying developer mitigation fees, and possibly land dedications, as required under the NBHCP, the Land Use Agencies shall implement a variety of measures that will avoid, minimize or mitigate the take of Covered Species.

10. Covered Activities. The term “Covered Activities” means the Land Use Agencies Covered Activities and the TNBC Covered Activities.

11. Covered Activities, Land Use Agencies. The term “Land Use Agencies Covered Activities” refers to those specific activities identified at Chapter I, Section N.(1) of the NBHCP for which each Land Use Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Covered Activities generally means the conversion from vacant land or agricultural uses to residential, commercial, and industrial uses, including related public and private infrastructure development and improvements by the City or Sutter County.

12. Covered Activities, TNBC. The term “TNBC Covered Activities” means those activities conducted by TNBC on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Permittees who may obtain take authorization pursuant to the NBHCP or an HCP based on the NBHCP, within TNBC’s Permit Area. These activities include acquisition, habitat creation, restoration, 30 wc-83845

preservation, enhancement, management and monitoring activities within Conserved Habitat Areas. TNBC’s Covered Activities are described at Chapter I, Section N (3) of the NBHCP.

13. Covered Activities, Water Agencies. The term “Water Agencies Covered Activity” refers to those specific activities identified in Chapter I, Section N (2) of the NBHCP for which each Water Agency Permittee shall be provided coverage under the federal Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, and the State Section 2081 Permits. Such Covered Activities generally include physical maintenance and operation of the Water Agencies’ existing facilities located within the Plan Area, including channel maintenance, vegetation control (where no herbicides are utilized), and construction or improvement of facilities where there is no increase to the footprint of the existing facility.

14. Covered Species. The term "Covered Species" means the Federally Protected Species, State Protected Species and the Other Species identified within Table I-1 hereto.

15. ESA and CESA. The term "ESA" means the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The term "CESA" means the California Endangered Species Act, as amended.

16. Exempt Area. The term refers to areas within the Natomas Basin, within the City of Sacramento which are already approved for development or already developed and as shown on Exhibit B of the Implementation Agreement.

17. Federally Protected Species. The term "Federally Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed by the United States (“U.S.”) under the provisions of ESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may be found, in the Permit Areas, as well as those other Covered Species listed on Table I-1 that the USFWS may list in the future.

18. Five Point Policy. The term “Five Point Policy” refers to an addendum to the HCP Handbook published by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Service on June 1, 2000.

The five point policy addendum provides clarifying guidance for conducting the incidental take permit program and for those applying for an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

19. Habitat Values. The term "Habitat Values" means the capability of a land or water area or associated areas, where indigenous plant(s) or animal(s), individually or collectively, may occur and upon which the Covered Species are dependent, in whole or in part, to provide for some or all of their maintenance, growth and reproduction.

20. Implementation Annual Meeting. The term refers to the annual public meeting held jointly with TNBC, other Permittees, USFWS and CDFG to report on the progress of the HCP Conservation Strategy as described in Chapter VI. G of the NBHCP.

21. Implementation Annual Report. The term refers to the annual report prepared by the TNBC describing the compliance and effectiveness monitoring processes and findings and the status of the progress in implementing the NBHCP in accordance with the requirements of Chapter VI, Section G of the NBHCP.
31 wc-83845

22. Incidental Take. The term "Incidental Take" means any taking of Covered Species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activity.

23. Incidental Take Permits. The terms “Incidental Take Permits,” “ITPs” and “Permits” mean the individual permits issued to each Permittee subject to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act and Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act.

24. Independent Mid-Point Review. This term refers to the required review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the HCP by each of the land use agencies at a defined mid-point in the approval of Authorized Development and as more specifically defined in Chapter VI, Section J of the NBHCP.

25. Land Use Agencies. The term “Land Use Agencies” means the City of Sacramento and Sutter County. If and when Sacramento County submits and receives approval of its own ITP, Sacramento County would be considered a Land Use Agency as defined herein.

26. MAP (Metro Air Park) Habitat Conservation Plan (MAP HCP). This term refers to the approved Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project located in the unincorporated portion of the Natomas Basin within Sacramento County, specifically, “Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park Project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California, Prepared by Metro Air Park Property Owner’s Association, Dated 2001.”

27. Mitigation Fees. As defined in Chapter VI, the term "Mitigation Fees" means the one time, up-front fees levied upon an Authorized Development site (in gross acres) that is used to pay for the Mitigation Land acquisition, enhancement, management, monitoring, and other activities required under the NBHCP. The Mitigation Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of an Urban Development Permit by the Land Use Permittee. The components of the Mitigation Fee include: Land Acquisition, Restoration/Enhancement/Monitoring, Administration O&M, O&M Endowment Fund, Supplemental Endowment Fund, and Fee Collection Administration as defined in Chapter VI.

28. Mitigation Lands. The term “Mitigation Lands” means the reserve lands acquired through collection and use of Mitigation Fees from Authorized Development, and in some cases land which has been accepted for dedication from Authorized Development, which will be set aside and managed at a ratio of one-half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development. The NBHCP Operating Conservation Program will result in 8,750 acres of Mitigation Lands to be established and managed by TNBC.

29. Mitigation Ratio. The term “Mitigation Ratio” means mitigation for the conversion of land in the respective Permit Areas to Authorized Development at a ratio of one-half (½) acre of land protected or preserved for every one (1) acre of land converted to Authorized Development.

30. Mitigation Requirement. The term “Mitigation Requirement” means the mitigation requirement for each public and private project is determined by applying the Mitigation Ratio to the land area converted to Authorized Development as calculated in accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapter VI, Section 1. 32 wc-83845

31. Natomas Basin. "Natomas Basin" or "Basin" means that geographical area depicted in Figure 2, Natomas Basin and Affected Jurisdictions.

32. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. The terms “Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan,” “NBHCP” and “the Plan” mean the year 2002 version of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan prepared for the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC), RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

33. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, 1997. The terms “1997 NBHCP” and “1997 Plan” mean the previously approved City of Sacramento Natomas Basin HCP that was the original basis for this 2002 NBHCP.

34. No Surprises Rule. The term “No Surprises Rule” refers the terms and conditions specified in the February 28, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife final rule codifying its “No Surprises” policy into federal regulation (63 FR 8859). The “No Surprises” rule states, in part, that: “In negotiating unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] will not require the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or other natural resources beyond the level otherwise agreed upon for the species covered by the conservation plan without the consent of the Permittee. If additional conservation and mitigation measures are deemed necessary to respond to unforeseen circumstances, the [Service] may require additional measures of the Permittee where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, but only if such measures are limited to modifications within conserved habitat areas, if any, or to the Conservation Plan’s Operating Conservation Program for the affected species, and maintain the original terms of the Conservation Plan to the maximum extent possible. Additional conservation and mitigation measures will not involve the commitment of additional land, water or financial compensation or restrictions on the use of land, water, or other natural resources otherwise available for development or use under the original terms of the conservation plan, without the consent of the Permittee.” (50 C.F.R. Sections 17.22(b)(5)(iii) and 17.32(b)(5)(iii).) The No Surprises Rules is discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

35. Operating Conservation Program. The term “Operating Conservation Program” means the totality of the conservation and management measures provided for under the NBHCP to avoid, minimize, mitigate and monitor the impacts of take of the Covered Species as described in Chapters IV through VI of the Plan. The Operating Conservation Program includes totals the Permittees reporting obligations under the Permits and responses to Changed Circumstances described in Chapter VI.

36. Overall Program Review. This term refers to a required program review of the effectiveness of the Operating Conservation Program to be initiated at the point Urban Development Permits covering a total of 9,000 acres of development in the Natomas Basin have been issued by the Land Use Permittees and by Sacramento County for the Metro Air Park. The areas to be covered by the Overall Program Review are specified and described in Chapter VI, Section I of the NBHCP.

37. Permit Area, City of Sacramento. The term “Permit Area” as applied to the City of Sacramento means that area designated on Figure 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 8,050 acres located within the City of Sacramento city limits and in 33 wc-83845

certain locations (i.e., the Panhandle Annexation Area) within the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for the City of Sacramento is limited to this Permit Area.

38. Permit Area, County of Sutter. The term “Permit Area” as applied to Sutter County means that area designated on Figure 2 of the NBHCP Implementation Agreement that totals 7,467 acres located within the unincorporated areas of Sutter County, and approximately 16.5 acres located within unincorporated Sacramento County. Incidental take authority for Sutter County is limited to this Permit Area.

39. Permit Area, Natomas Mutual. The term “Permit Area” as applied to Natomas Mutual means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-of- ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of Natomas Mutual and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for Natomas Mutual is limited to this Permit Area.

40. Permit Area, RD 1000. The term “Permit Area” as applied to RD 1000 means canals, ditches, waterways, ponds and open water areas, as well as roads, right-of-ways, facilities, maintenance yards, pumps, pipelines, and water detention facilities, under the direct jurisdiction of RD 1000 and inside the inner toe of levees surrounding the Natomas Basin, but not including the Sacramento River levees. Incidental take authority for RD 1000 is limited to this Permit Area.

41. Permit Area, TNBC. The term “Permit Area” as applied to The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) consists of all lands within the Natomas Basin (the Plan Area), as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas.

42. Permittees. The term "Permittees" means the City of Sacramento, Sutter County, RD 1000, Natomas Mutual and The Natomas Basin Conservancy.

43. Plan Area. The term “Plan Area” means the entire 53,537 acres of land within the inside toe of levee of the Natomas Basin levees. The Plan Area refers to the portion of the Natomas Basin that is bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the Natomas Cross Canal, on the east by Steelhead Creek (formerly known as Natomas East Main Drain Canal), and on the south by the Garden Highway.

44. Planned Development. The term “Planned Development” means the Authorized Development plus the development of the 1,983 acre Metro Air Park, which is subject to the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (“MAP Authorized Development”)

45. Plan Operator. The term “Plan Operator” means The Natomas Basin Conservancy, the entity responsible for implementing the NBHCP.

46. Plan Participants. The term “Plan Participants” means parties actively involved in implementing the NBHCP, including the Wildlife Agencies (USFWS and CDFG), the Permittees (City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Mutual and RD 1000), and the Plan Operator (TNBC).
34 wc-83845

47. Potential Permittees. The term “Potential Permittees” refers to additional entities within the Natomas Basin that may decide to commit to the terms of the NBHCP and the Implementation Agreement and, through the issuance of Permits by the Wildlife Agencies, join as full Permittees at a future date.

48. Protected Species. The term "Protected Species" means those plants and animals listed under the State CESA and the Federal ESA.

49. Qualified Biologist. The term “qualified biologist” shall refer to a biologist which meets the training and experience requirements necessary to conduct assessments or surveys for specific species, and who has been approved by the Wildlife Agencies to conduct those assessments or surveys.

50. Reintroduction. The term “reintroduction” as used in the NBHCP refers to relocating individuals (or seeds or cysts, etc) of a Covered Species: (1). Either from one TNBC Reserve Site to another TNBC Reserve Site or from one location on a TNBC Reserve Site to a new location within the same TNBC Reserve Site; or (2) the relocation of an individual of a Covered Species from a site which will be impacted by Authorized Development to a TNBC Reserve Site to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts to Covered Species. The term “reintroduction” as used in the Natomas Basin HCP refers to the movement of animals or plants within the Basin and does not refer to the intentional introduction or recolonization of Covered Species from outside the Basin to inside the Basin.

51. Revisions. Refers to minor changes to the NBHCP as specified in Chapter VI, Section 3.a of the NBHCP. Revisions to the NBHCP are changes to the Plan provided for under the Operating Conservation Program, including Adaptive Management changes and Mitigation Fee adjustments. These revisions would not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved.

52. Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits. The terms "Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits" or "Permits" as used in this Plan means the permits issued by the USFWS under Section 10 (a)(1)(B) of the ESA which authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas Basin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permit" may also be used in this Plan to collectively refer to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits, and the Section 2081 Permits.

53. Section 2081 Permits. The terms "Section 2081 Permits” or “Permits” means the permits for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species, listed under the CESA, issued by the CDFG under Section 2081(b) and/or 2081.1 of the California Fish and Game Code, or any successor section to authorize the incidental take of a Covered Species which may occur as a result of urban development activities, including public facilities projects, within 35 wc-83845

the City of Sacramento and Sutter County, or as a result of the operation and/or maintenance, including the construction and improvements with no significant increase to the existing footprint, of flood control or water supply activities, water ditches, canals, pumphouses, maintenance facilities, or other ancillary facilities within the Natomas B asin, or as a result of habitat management, enhancement, or restoration activities on reserve lands. "Permits" may also be used in this Agreement to refer collectively to the Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and/or the Section 2081(b) or 2081.1 Permits.

54. Site Specific Management Plan. The terms “Site Specific Management Plan” and “SSMP” mean those plans that TNBC is required to complete for each reserve unit that it acquires.

SSMP’s shall include operations plans that address on-site habitat restoration, enhancement, maintenance and management activities that will be presented to the NBHCP TAC for approval on a three year basis.

55. State Protected Species. The term ‘State Protected Species” means those plants and animals listed by the State of California (“State”) under the provisions of CESA and shown as Covered Species on Table I-1 hereto that are found, or may found, in the permit areas.

56. Swainson’s Hawk Zone. This zone is defined as the lands which are not currently developed (excluding the 250 acres of land designated “Urban” on the City of Sacramento General Plan and the North Natomas Community Plan located within the City of Sacramento) and which are located within the Natomas Basin and within one mile east of the toe of the inside levee of the Sacramento River and extending from the Natomas Cross Canal on the north and Interstate 80 on the south. See also Figure 13 of the NBHCP.

57. System of Reserves. The term “system of reserves” means Mitigation Lands generally and includes all habitat conserved and managed for the Covered Species, including rice fields by TNBC.

58. Take or Taking. With regard to any activities subject to ESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in the ESA. With regard to any activities subject to CESA, the terms “Take” or “Taking” shall have the same meaning as provided in CESA.

59. Technical Advisory Committee. The terms “Technical Advisory Committee” and “TAC” mean the advisory group of technical experts selected by the Permittees and the Wildlife Agencies to assist TNBC Board with directing the implementation of the NBHCP.

60. The Natomas Basin Conservancy. The terms “The Natomas Basin Conservancy,” “the Conservancy” or “TNBC” shall mean the independent entity established for the purpose of implementing the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan on behalf of the City, Sutter County and other Potential Permittees. The TNBC is also a Permittee for purposes of implementation of the reserve system.

61. TNBC Mitigation Land or Reserve Area. The term “TNBC Reserve Area” or “TNBC Mitigation Land” shall mean those areas where TNBC is authorized to acquire and manage wildlife reserves subject to the provisions of the NBHCP. Such areas shall include all lands within the Natomas Basin, as well as the land bounding the Natomas Basin and extending to the edge of water immediately outside the Natomas Basin levees and Area B as depicted 36 wc-83845

on Figure 20, Out of Basin Mitigation Areas. The TNBC Reserve Area and the TNBC Permit Area are coterminous.

62. Unforeseen Circumstances. The term “Unforeseen circumstances” is defined at 50 C.F.R.

17.3 as changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that could not reasonably have been anticipated by plan developers and the USFWS at the time of the NBHCP’s negotiation and development, and that result in a substantial and adverse change in the status of the Covered Species. Unforeseen circumstances are discussed in Chapter VI, Section K of the NBHCP.

63. Urban Development Permit and Urban Development Pe rmittee. The term “Urban Development Permit” shall mean the final authorization granted by the Land Use Agencies prior to disturbance of undeveloped land in conjunction with a public or private development project. An Urban Development Permit may also be used to refer to a grading permit or notice to proceed. An “Urban Development Permittee” refers to the individual, agency or company applying for approval, or receiving approval of an Urban Development Permit from the Land Use Agencies.

64. Water Agencies . The term “Water Agencies” means RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual.

Natomas Mutual is a private company and not a governmental agency.

65. Wildlife Agencies. The term “Wildlife Agencies” means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game.
37 wc-83845

wc-83845
38 Baseline Map - Exhibit B
City of Sacramento
£7 1 // |_L 1 HI
□
1 1
TI
J.n—thl

wc-83845
40 Sankey Road
Riego Road
S a c r a m e n t o River
Elverta Road
NOTE: ALL LANDS WITHIN EXISTING

ROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY ARE

CONSIDERED EXEMPT
Ã?
Powerline Road
Pacific Avenue
Sutter County
Sacramento County
Offsite canal
improvements
to support
South Sutter
County Specific Plan -
Part of Sutter County
Permit Area
LEGEND
Natomas Basin
Exempt from HCP
South Sutter County
Specific Plan Area EXHIBIT C
SUTTER COUNTY BASELINE MAP Sutter County Permit Area
1 Miles SUTTER COUNTY PERMIT AREA
1 Inch = 4500 Feet AND EXEMPT LANDS
CH2M Hill RDD ArcView Project File \\Thor\Cart1\rddgis\natomashcp\nat_hcp.apr exhibit_c.pdf 4:05 p.m. 07-30-2002 0 wc-83845
42 Exhibit D -List of Covered Species in Permit Area
TABLE I - 1

LISTED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE NBHCP

AND/OR COVERED BY ITS ASSOCIATED PERMITS
# Species Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
1 Aleutian Canada goose
Branta canadensis
leucopareia
SC Grazes in marshes and stubble fields, roosts on the water 2 bank swallow
Riparia riparia
T Nests in river banks, forages for insects over open water, croplands, and grasslands
3 burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
SSC Prefers open, dry grassland and desert habitats
4 loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
SC SSC Prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, fences, and posts. Will use cropland.
5 Swainson's hawk
Buteo swainsoni
T Breeds in riparian forest; known nesting sites in trees along Sacramento River in Natomas Basin. Forages for
small mammals in grasslands and croplands.
6 tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
SC SSC Nests in marshes with bulrush, blackberry or cattails; three known occurrences in Natomas Basin. Forages on
the ground in grasslands and croplands.
7 white-faced ibis
Plegadis chihi
SC SSC Forages in flooded rice fields
8 giant garter snake
Thamnophis gigas
T T Forages in marshes, low gradient open waterways and flooded rice fields, hibernates in canal berms and other uplands; several known occurrences in Natomas Basin
9 northwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata
marmorata
SC SSC Lives in permanent bodies of water; requires floating vegetation, logs, rocks or banks for basking. Hibernates and lays eggs is uplands.
10 California tiger salamander
Ambystoma californiense
C SSC Winters in ground squirrel burrows or other holes; breeds in vernal pools, stockponds , and other seasonal
wetlands.
11 western spadefoot toad
Scaphiopus hammondii
SC SSC Primary habitat is grasslands; breeds in shallow temporary pools
12 valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
T Lives and reproduces on elderberry shrubs found along rivers and canals.
13 midvalley fairy shrimp
Branchinecta mesovallensis
n. sp.

Vernal pool obligate often found in small pools; likely to occur in Plan Area
14 vernal pool fairy shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi
T Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento County
15 vernal pool tadpole shrimp
Lepidurus packardi
E Vernal pool obligate; widely distributed in Sacramento County
16 Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiaola heterosepala
E Low-terrace species found in shallow water margins of vernal pools
17 Colusa Grass
Neostapfia colusana
T Occurs in large deep pools with substrates of adobe mud but also in smaller pools; known in Yolo County
43 wc-83845

# Species Federal
Status
State
Status Habitat Notes
18 delta tule pea
Lathyrus jepsonii ssp.jepsonii
SC Perennial twining vine occurs in both riparian and marsh habitats
19 legenere
Legenere limosa
SC Found in wet places or vernal pools below 400 feet in elevation
20 Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida
E E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
21 Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
SC Tuberose perennial likely to occur in drainage or irrigation ditches
22 slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
T E Found in relatively large, deep vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County
Key to Abbreviations
Federal
E = Listed as endangered C = Candidate for federal listing, data sufficient T = Listed as threatened SC = Species of Concern--informal category, formerly called candidate 2 species (data for listing
insufficient)
State
E = Listed as EndangeredR = Listed as Rare
T = Listed as Threatened SSC = Species of Special Concern 44 wc-83845

EXHIBIT 7
Natomas Basin E042002017SAC cover_6.indd 04.21.03
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement
April 2003
State Clearinghouse No. 1997062064
Volume 1
Sutter County
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Sacramento
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP i

FINAL EIR/EIS
Cover Sheet
Title of Proposed Action: Issuance of Incidental Take Permits and Implementation of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
NEPA Responsible Official: Steve Thompson
Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, California 95825
Contact Person: Cay Goude
Assistant Field Supervisor, Endangered Species Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, W-2605
Sacramento, California 95825
(916) 414-6600
Legal Authority: Endangered Species Act of 1973, a
s amended,
Section 10(a), as implemented by 50 CFR 17.32(b)(1).

Location of Proposed Action: Natomas Basin
Sacramento and Sutter Counties, C
alifornia
Applicant Names:

City of Sacramento
1231 I Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 264-7601
Contact: Grace Hovey
Sutter County
c/o Pacific Municipal Consultants
10461 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110
Sacramento, California 95827
(916) 361-8384
Contact: Paul Junker
Natomas Basin Conservancy
1750 Creekside Oaks Drive
Suite 290
Sacramento, California 95833
(916) 649-3331
Contact: John Roberts
EIR/EIS Preparer Name: CH2M HILL
2485 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 600
Sacramento, California 95833
SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
3-34 NATOMAS BASIN HCP SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC)

FINAL EIR/EIS
CESA (Appendix I). The USFWS and CDFG have informed the County of their intent to initiate enforcement actions in the event such activities continue.

Flood Control and Water Supply Projects
In response to the recommendation that local flood control projects be discussed in the context of cumulative actions, the EIR/EIS currently includes such a discussion (see Section 4.1.2.3) of these and other potential long-term future actions. As noted in the introduction to Section 4.1.2.2, the criteria for assessing whether an action would be evaluated in detail for cumulative impacts in association with the Proposed Action in this EIR/EIS are that an urban development permit or other permit application has been submitted to a federal or non-federal agency that has approval authority or those that are related to the types of impacts attributable to those that would result from implementing the Proposed Action evaluated in the EIR/EIS. As noted in EIR/EIS, a project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and SAFCA would improve the east levee of the Sacramento River at some future, but unknown, time. This project is related to the comprehensive American River Watershed Investigation, which was an important precursor to the NBHCP. In addition, other projects are under consideration along the east levee, including the construction of a consolidated pumping plant for Natomas Mutual. Although the flood control and water-related projects discussed in Section 4.1.2.3 have the potential to occur in the future, data are insufficient to conduct a meaningful analysis of their cumulative impacts for several reasons as explained on page 4-7 of the Draft EIR/EIS, including: (1) the sponsor of the future activities had not yet initiated the planning and feasibility studies at the time the Draft EIR/EIS was prepared so the nature of the flood control and water-related activities was undefined; (2) where preliminary engineering plans were available, these plans were being revised, so the nature of the proposal remained unknown; or (3) the environmental review process for the projects had not been initiated at the time the Draft EIR/EIS was released.

3.1.4.4 Effect on the NBHCP of Future Development Outside the Permit Areas As stated in the NBHCP, the conservation program and ITPs provide incidental take coverage for the cumulative development of 17,500 acres of Planned Development within the City, Sutter County, and the MAP Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. As the NBHCP and EIR/EIS explain and for the reasons described above, development activities on unincorporated lands outside of the City, Sutter County, and MAP portion of Sacramento County are not addressed in the NBHCP and do not receive incidental take authorizations based upon this NBHCP (see Draft NBHCP pages I-5 to I-7, I-11; Draft EIR/EIS page 2-2).

The Operations Conservation Program proposed in the NBHCP is effective in compensating for the effects of incidental take associated with 17,
500 acres of Planned Development when
considered with the 7,267 acres of development which occurred in the Basin prior to 1997.

Thus, 24,767 acres of urban development is contemplated in the Natomas Basin by the NBHCP. The NBHCP does not address more than 17,500 acres of Planned Development because it is unknown whether the NBHCP would remain effective in mitigating for effects beyond 17,500 acres. The analyses conducted in support of the NBHCP demonstrate that the Operating Conservation Program is effective with up to 24,767 acres of past, present, and future urban development in the Basin. Thus, the effectiveness of the NBHCP is dependent on limiting Planned Development to 17,500 acres of development. If future development proposals were to proceed, or developers were to seek annexation to the City of Sacramento for purposes of developing their projects, such proposals would be considered outside of SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
SAC/161795/031060001(001.DOC) NATOMAS BASIN HCP 3-35

FINAL EIR/EIS
the scope of the NBHCP. These proposals would represent a significant departure from the Operating Conservation Program, which would trigger a new analysis and a separate HCP or amendment to the NBHCP. At this time, however, such development is unable to proceed because the City and Sacramento County have not completed the Joint Vision planning effort. Moreover, Resolution 2001-518 precludes certain development proposals from proceeding until a comprehensive annexation program is developed for the Basin.

Because a comprehensive annexation program for the remainder of the Natomas Basin has not been established, over 26,
000 acres currently remain available within the Natomas Basin for their potential acquisition as Mitigation Lands. If the NBHCP is approved and ITPs are issued, TNBC may consider these areas as potential Mitigation Lands, to the extent landowners are willing to sell their property. The effectiveness of the NBHCP depends on the availability of such lands, as well as the potential availability of lands in Area B outside the Basin. The NBHCP contemplates that these lands will continue to be available for Mitigation Land acquisition. As such, in the event that the Joint Vision planning process were to result in a change in the City’s SOI or other development were to proceed outside of the City’s and Sutter County’s Permit Areas, these changes would be viewed as a change in the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program. These changes would, therefore, require an amendment to the NBHCP or a separate HCP for the development of such areas, as described in the NBHCP and further discussed in Master Response 3 (Joint Vision).

3.1.4.5 Inconsistencies in Cumulative Impact Analysis in the NBHCP and EIR/EIS Comments also suggested that the NBHCP and the EIR/EIS are inconsistent in the discussion of cumulative impacts. The basis for the assertion of inconsistency is that the criteria used in the EIR/EIS for identifying the actions that could result in cumulative impacts are too narrow and do not allow for evaluation of future development. One comment stated that the EIR/EIS narrowly interprets the California Code of Regulations, Section 15355 (CEQA) and 40 CFR Section 1508.7 (NEPA) guidance on cumulative impacts.

We believe the criteria used to identify actions to assess for cumulative impacts, the existing criteria used in the EIR/EIS are based on CEQA and NEPA guidance. They are adequate as defined and discussed further above. The Draft EIR/EIS includes verbatim the CEQA and NEPA guidance to which the comment refers (see Section 4.1.2.1, pages 4-3 and 4-4).

Commentors also suggest that future development projects are identified in the Draft NBHCP but not incl
uded in the EIS/EIR. Specifically, the NBHCP states that applications were filed for the West Lakeside and Greenbriar Farms projects as potential future annexation proposals, which are not covered by the NBHCP. The EIS/EIR indicates, however, that no applications have been filed for future specific development proposals.

To clarify this situation, text revisions have been made to page 4-8 of the Draft EIR/EIS.

The text of the changes is in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR/EIS.

3.1.5 Master Response 5: Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Commentors have raised concerns about the NBHCP’s measures for mitigating the impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the Natomas Basin from the Covered Activity of Planned Development. This master response is provided to clarify the effectiveness of the NBHCP, under ESA and CESA, in mitigating for the effects of take of Swainson’s hawks EXHIBIT 8
Aerosol Science and Technology, 45:1123-1134, 2011
Copyright © American Association for Aerosol Research
ISSN: 0278-6826 print/ 1521-7388 online
DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2011.582194
Very Fine and Ultrafine Metals and lschemic Heart Disease in the California Central Valley 1: 2003-2007
Thomas A. Cahill, 1,2 David E. Barnes,1 Nicholas J. Spada,1 Jonathan A. Lawton,1 and Thomas M. Cahi113
1DELTA Group, University of California, Davis, California, USA 2The Health Effects Task Force, Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails, Sacramento, California, USA
3Division of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Arizona State University West Campus, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
The enhancement of mortality associated with cardiovascular and specifically ischemic heart disease (IHD) has been observed in the southern California Central Valley since at least 1990, and it continues to be a major source of mortality. While there is a strong statistical association of IHD with wintertime PM2.5 mass, the causal agents are uncertain. Medical studies identify some po­ tential causal agents, such as very fine and ultrafine metals, but they have not been fully characterized in most Central Valley re­ gions. To provide improved information on specific and potentially causal agents, a five site aerosol sampling transect was conducted from Redding to Bakersfield during a 17-day period of strong stag­ nation, January 5-22, 2009. Mass and elemental components were measured every 3 h in eight particle size modes, ranging from 10 to 0.09 µ,m, while the ultrafine particles ( <0.09 µ,m) were col­ lected on Teflon filters. Ancillary studies were performed including direct upwind-downwind profiles across a heavily traveled sec­ ondary street near a stoplight. Very fine and ultrafine iron, nickel, copper, and zinc were identified as vehicular, with the most prob­ able sources being brake drums and pads and the lubrication oil additive zinc thiophosphate. High correlations, many with r2 > Received 7 August 2010; accepted 27 November 2010.

The authors first wish to gratefully acknowledge the support of the Resources Legacy Fund of Sacramento, California, for encouragement and financial support for this study.

The staff of all of the Air Resources Board (ARB) sampling sites were key to successful execution of the project.

The authors also wish to gratefully acknowledge the financial sup­ port of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District under its CEO, Larry Greene.

The authors wish to acknowledge the input and oversight of the Health Effects Task Force (HETF) of Breathe California of Sacramento­ Emigrant under J ananne Sharpless, Chair; Betty Turner, consultant to the HETF, and especially members Ralph Propper and Earl Withy­ combe. Helpful suggestions and review were provided by William Wilson, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Address correspondence to Thomas A. Cahill, DELTA Group, Uni­ versity of California-Davis, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

0.9, were found between these vehicular metals and IHD mortality, enhanced by the meteorology, terrain, and traffic patterns of the southern Central Valley. The braking systems of cars and trucks must now be considered along with direct exhaust emissions in estimating the health impacts from traffic.
[Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Aerosol Science and Technology to view the free supplementary files.]

INTRODUCTION
The task of determining the causal factors that lie behind the statistically sound association of mortality with aerosols con­ tinues to labor under severe difficulties. Reliance on Federal Reference Method (FRM) methodologies, even if enhanced by periodic compositional analysis, does not provide enough in­ formation to allow health research scientists to identify causal factors (Lippmann 2009). Intensive research studies, which can provide such data, are so expensive as to limit their scope in space and time and thus pose problems with statistical signifi­ cance. An alternative is to identify regions with persistent and specific health impacts of suspected aerosol origins and then augment monitoring data and special studies to provide a suite of data from which causal factors may be identified. However, other factors such as meteorology, land use, and socioeconomic factors can often weaken the significance (Pope et al. 1995).

The California Central Valley, however, is a region of such ho­ mogeneity that such efforts there might be fruitful.

The southern part of the California Central Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, is the largest contiguous area of the United Sates in serious violation of both ozone (summer) and PM2.s (winter) ambient air quality standards. While the summer ozone levels are relatively uniform over the Central Valley, the winter PM 10 and PM2.5 concentrations vary strongly, from low in the northern Sacramento Valley to high in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

During individual winter stagnation episodes, the south to north 1123
Cahill -- 00000286
1124 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.
(Bakersfield to Redding) mass ratio is up to a factor of 8 for PM10, and a factor of 5 for PM2.s.

In addition to improving monitoring data, a series of ex­ tensive research studies by and through the California Air Re­ sources Board (ARB), such as California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS 2001), Central Coast Ozone Study (CCOS), and Fresno Asthmatic Children's Environment Study (FACES), were initiated in 1999 through 2001 that greatly added to our knowledge of San Joaquin Valley aerosols. However, most field data were taken before the current understanding of aerosols and cardiovascular impacts was achieved (Devlin 2003, Lippmann 2009) and thus lack some critical measurements, es­ pecially ultrafine metals (Chow et al. 2006, 2007, 2008; Chen et al. 2007; Kleeman et al. 2009). One of the major results of these studies is an understanding that most of the PM2.s mass in the winter in the San Joaquin Valley is ammonium nitrate and wood smoke, neither of which are a known cardiovascular threat.

The mortality data in the entire Central Valley are relatively uniform for three of the four major causes of mortality, pul­ monary disease, stroke, and cancer, but the 4th and most impor­ tant, heart attacks from all causes, is higher by about 20% in the central and extreme southern California Central Valley [Cali­ fornia Department of Health Services (CA DHS) 2010] and es­ pecially in Bakersfield. For one specific and major component of heart disease, ischemic heart disease (IHD), the incidence rises to about 35% (CA DHS 2010). In this research, we have measured some of the components of aerosols found by recent health studies most likely to be causal factors in this statistically strong association to cardiovascular disease, namely very fine and ultrafine metals, and size and compositionally-resolved or­ ganics (Cahill 2010), over the entire Central Valley, with the goal to enhance data from the earlier studies and provide additional material for future epidemiological analyses.

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Study Region Geography and Climatology
The Central Valley of California (Figure 1) has remarkable uniformity in terrain and meteorology. It is one of the richest agricultural areas in the world, with two major metropolitan areas, the Sacramento-Stockton and Fresno, with smaller cities of a few 100,000 to small towns spread throughout the Valley.

The Valley is a major transportation corridor for road and rail traffic but generally lacks strong industrial sources. There are active areas of oil extraction near and north of Bakersfield. The Central Valley offers an ideal situation to examine the effects of pollutants on health since many potential confounding factors, such as meteorology, land use patterns, socio-economic factors, and cigarette smoking, are very similar throughout the Valley (Cahill et al. 1998; note that the values in that report are slightly different in the present report since we have now available CORE Report #2 (1996), while the original report used CORE Report #1 (1994)).

Saa-am.mt.a
Valley
region
• N
1---1
100 lar.

FIG. 1. Map of the Central Valley of California. The northern part is referred to as the Sacramento Valley while the southern part is called the San Joaquin Valley. The areas within the dotted circumference vary in altitude from almost sea level in the Delta to a few hundred feet in elevation. The small arrows denote the typical winter wind patterns (Hayes et al. 1984 ). The cities marked were used in this study.

In summer, high temperatures in the Valley (mean daily high, July, 36°C ± 1 °C) lower the surface pressure and draw massive inputs of marine air into the Valley from the San Francisco Bay, bringing with it oceanic aerosols and typical urban pollutants enhanced by the major petrochemical industrial sites at the Car­ quinez Strait, between Sacramento and San Francisco. These winds often funnel south down the entire San Joaquin Valley, south of the strait, but less often funnel north up the entire Sacramento Valley, north of the strait. Rainfall in the Valley is rare during the period from May through October (Hayes et al. 1984).

In winter, the Central Valley air basin tends to become stag­ nant due to its flat valley floor and circumferential mountains, except at the Straits (Figure 1 ). There is slow drainage of cold air from the Sierra Nevada Mountains each night to the Valley floor (mean daily low, January, 3°C ± 1 °C). The air drains slowly, at the rate of about 50 km/day, from both the northern and southern ends of the valley towards the lowest point, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, southwest of Sacramento and directly east of the Carquinez Strait. This pattern results in persistent stagnation episodes that are periodically interrupted by synoptic storms.

Typical Pollution Patterns
The annual pattern of PM2.s mass reflects the effects of the winter stagnation, with elevated levels from about November through February (Figure 2). All valley sites have similar annual Cahill -- 00000287
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 1 1125
90 ... 80
"' ~ 70 E
:S 60
:::i
~ 50
"' Q,
"' 40 E
~ 30
:: <.>
:i
20 10
0 ~il
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12
2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Monlh of lhe year 2002
FIG. 2. Annual pattern of PM2.s mass as seen at Fresno. patterns, high in winter and low in summer. The PM2.s peak seen in August was from a forest fire in Oregon. While the southern reaches of the Central Valley have serious violations of federal and state mass standards (ADAM 2010), other parts of the valley that share agriculturally based land uses and meteorology do not exhibit serious violations of these standards. For PM 10 mass, the ratio from Bakersfield in the south to Redding in the north can be as high as a factor of 9 in winter stagnation events, while for PM2.s, the ratio can be as high as a factor of 5 (ADAM 2010).

The pattern of winter air movement makes the high aerosol mass levels at Bakersfield difficult to explain, since the nighttime airflow into Bakersfield is from the mountains to the south, southeast, and east of the city. There is essentially no influence from the Los Angeles basin due to the blocking mountains. The air at Bakersfield then flows slowly north towards Fresno, which has generally lower PM2.s mass levels despite greater population and industry.

Epidemiological Data
Greatly improved data on mortality and morbidity became available circa 2001 from the California Department of Health Services (CA DHS 2010), which allow detailed analyses of death by hundreds of cause on an annual basis. These data show a persistent enhancement, 2003-2007, of IHD mortality of roughly 50% in the central region and at Bakersfield, at the extreme southern edge of the San Joaquin Valley, as compared with the northern valley (Figure 3).

Aerosol Sampling Methods
Aerosol samples were collected along a transect in the Cen­ tral Valley to investigate the causal factors behind the increased mortality due to IHD in the Central Valley of California. Since routine air quality measurements were available in this region, we collected and analyzed aerosols not routinely measured by existing monitoring programs that were known or suspected to be causal factors in cardiovascular disease. Further, we selected a period of stagnation that maximizes winter particulate mass 2!10
y= 00732x + 129.48
r2 = 0 2614
l
□------------------------(l 100 200 300 400 ~00 600 700 Distance from north end of Central Valley (km)
FIG. 3. IHD in the Central Valley of California, 2003-2007. Distances span from Redding in the north (0 km) through Chico (170 km), Sacramento (220 km), Fresno (400 km) to Bakersfield (680 km).
concentrations, avoiding the synoptic fronts and rain that pe­ riodically clean out the valley in winter. Using meteorological predictions, we simultaneously sampled continuously by size, time, and composition for 17 days starting on Jan 5, 2009, at five sites from the extreme north, Redding, to the extreme south, Bakersfield.

Rotating drum impactors (DELTA Group 8 DRUMs; Cahill
et al. 1985; Raabe et al. 1988) were used at all sites to provide continuous samples capable of 3-h data in eight impaction size modes from 10 to 0.09 µ,m diameter plus an integrating Teflon after filter. The impaction samples were collected onto Apiezon­ L greased Mylar stages (Wesolowski et al. 1977). Analyses were made for mass and elements from aluminum to molybdenum
plus lead by synchrotron-induced x-ray fluorescence (Bench et al. 2002). The quality assurance validations, including a year­ long inter-method comparison to ARB's FRM particular sam­ plers, are summarized in the supplemental information. For the ARB side-by-side over the entire year, agreement for PM2.s mass was better than ±10%, DRUM versus FRM, with the win­ ter agreement much better than that, a few percent, probably because of higher winter mass values. Note that 49 individual mass values from a DRUM with 3-h time resolution and 6 sub-

2.5-µ,m size cuts plus a <0.09 µ,m after-filter were required to match a single 24-h PM2.s mass value.

Aerosols destined for organic analyses were likewise col­ lected with DRUM samplers at the same time and locations as the elemental samplers. However, the organic samples were an­ alyzed averaging over the entire 17-day study, and the aerosols were collected onto fired aluminum substrates (Cahill 2010).

The study included three components, all conducted in win­ ter conditions and using the same equipment, including inte­ grating ultrafine Teflon filters: (1) an initial year-long study of the DRUM sampler side-by-side with the ARB's FRM at the Cahill -- 00000288
1126 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.

Sacramento test site at 13th and T Street to establish equiva­ lency of the sampling and analysis (Cahill and Barnes 2009), (2) a simultaneous transect across a heavily traveled secondary street to identify very fine and ultrafine aerosols from roadways, and (3) the main transect study in winter, 2009. Summaries of these studies are included in supplemental information.

For the transect study, samples were collected at five existing ARB and district monitoring sites covering the entire Central Valley (Figure 1 ):

Redding (roof of Health Department),
Chico (ARB Manzanita Avenue site),
Sacramento (ARB 13th and T Street site),
Fresno (ARB First Street site), and
Bakersfield (ARB California Street site).

Paired UC Davis DELTA Group 8 DRUM samplers were
used at all sites except Sacramento, which had to use a PM 2.s 3 DRUM for lack of equipment. One 8 DRUM was used at
each site for mass and elements (3-h time resolution), sampling onto lightly greased Mylar, and the other for organic matter (17- day average), sampling onto fired aluminum foils. All included identical Teflon ultrafine filters that integrated the entire 17-day period. The parameters measured at all sites include but are not limited to

1. time-averaged ultrafine particulate elemental composition, Al to Mo, plus lead, and mass, 0.09 > Dp > 0.0 µ,m aerody­ namic diameter,

2. time-dependent (3 h) mass and elements (see above) for the eight particle sizes 10.0-5.0, 2.5, 1.15, 0.75, 0.56, 0.34,

0.26-0.09 µ,m aerodynamic diameter,

3. time-averaged organic matter by size, 10.0-5.0, 2.5, 1.15,

0.75, 0.56, 0.34, 0.26---0.09 and <0.09 µ,m diameter, includ­ ing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sugars (in­ cluding levoglucosan), fatty acids, and n-alkanes have been published (Cahill 2010).

RESULTS
Meteorology
After the sites were selected, deployment was delayed un­ til weather predictions indicated at least a 10-day period of low winds and stagnation, conditions that produce the highest PM2.s mass. The prediction was accurate and the meteorology was favorable and allowed us to extend the study to a 17-day period characterized by high mass values and persistent hazes (Table 1).

Aerosol Mass Values
PM10 mass values were available at all sites on January 19, while all sites except Redding had daily PM2.s mass values collected by the ARB and local agencies (ADAM 2010). The PM25 values were averaged over the entire 17-day study period ·--- P'M 10 mass. 1119 --+- Pll 211 man, 1119 -• · PM2_5 mass. study avg 100
90 1 80 E
.l:! 70 ..c ::,
u 60
iii so a.
.. 40 E
e 30 C)
e ,,
u 20 .,
i 10 II"
0 Redding
., .,
,.
r , , , , ,,
Chico Sai:ramento Fresno Bakersfield
Transect north to south
FIG. 4. PM2.s mass values were available every day, but only January 19th had PM10 mass at all valley sites. The high PM10 to PM2.s ratio on January 19 is unusual and unexplained.
and were typical of prior winter stagnation events (Table 2 and Figure 4 ). Looking in more detail, we can see that the north to south increase in average PM2.s mass is driven not as much by the increase in mass on a given day but the number of days that saw the high mass values.

Aerosol monitoring by state and local agencies with com­ positional data for PM2.s aerosols was only available at the Fresno site via the IMPROVE sampler (Malm et al. 1994 ).

The evolution of the aerosol event is shown in Figure 6, show­ ing that the study period would represent a winter day in vi­ olation of the PM2.s mass standard. The important role am­ monium nitrate plays during these aerosol episodes is clearly indicated.

Size-Resolved Mass and Inorganic Aerosols
For the period from January 5 through 22, over 6400 mea­ surements were made of mass and inorganic elements in nine size modes, measured every 3 h except for the integrating ul­ trafine filters. In addition, a simultaneous study (Cahill 2010) measured organic aerosols in four classes (alkanes, PAHs, .! It
l 10
1iH
il so
i 40
t ,e
~ 20
0 u 1tl
---- Bakersfield, - +- Fresno, _.,_ Sacramento, · • • Chico ' \
' , r
i o-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...,....,
31 2 4 t 8: 11 12 14 16 18: 20 22 24 H
1 3 S 7 I 11 13 1 S 17 19 21 2S 25
January 2009
FIG. 5. PM2.s mass values before, during, and after the study period of January 5-22, 2009.

Cahill -- 00000289
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 1 1127
TABLE 1
Summary of meteorological parameters during sample collection period of January 5-22, 2009. The values reported are the average over the entire aerosol sampling period except for rainfall, which includes the rain on the days of setup and take down, January 5 and 22
Parameter Redding
Average temperature (°C) 11.3
Average high (°C) 19.3
Average low (°C) 3.0
Relative humidity(%) 56.4
Average wind speed (m/s) 1.92
Rain (cm) 1.2
Number of rain events 4
Number of fog events 0
Average visibility (km) 14.6
sugars, and organic acids) in nine size modes at all sites. In this article, we focus on those particles that have the best support from the health literature as having the potential for causing or exacerbating IHD. Thus, we focus on only those insoluble par­ ticles in the very fine (0.26-0.09 µ,m) and ultrafine ( <0.09 µ,m) modes that are able to penetrate deeply into the lung and pass into the cardiovascular system. However, before we focus on these particles, we need to examine the overall aerosol behavior important to eventually isolate the sources of these particles.

Using the well-studied Fresno site, we can see that the size distribution roughly matches expectations with a few differences (Figure 7). In Figure 7, three points stand out. First, the DRUM sampler with its coated substrates operated well, with negligible soil mass penetrating into the accumulation mode as shown by the calcium results. Second, there is a distinct deviation in the size profile of iron, which shows an enhancement in the 1.15-2.5 µ,m size mode not seen in other soil elements. Third, potassium becomes enhanced in the finest modes, clearly from non-soil sources. It is also much finer in size than typical wood smoke, which almost always peaks in the 0.34-0.75 µ,m mode.

Examining the non-soil iron anomaly (Figure 8), the size and 3-h time data show enhancement in the 2.5-1.15 µ,m mode each night not seen in other soil elements and not seen at any other valley site. The very fine iron often tracks the fine iron, but sharp deviations occur, indicating complex source behavior.

Chico Sacramento Fresno Bakersfield

9.6 9.0 9.4 10.6

15.5 16.1 15.4 16.5

3.7 1.7 3.2 4.4

71.6 73.4 71.8 66.4

1.27 0.47 0.62 1.17

2.2 2.5 1.2 0.1
3 3 2 2
2 11 2 2

12.3 7.1 6.9 6.6
Bakersfield lacks time information due to a system failure, and thus its behavior in time is unknown.

Further insight on zinc in Fresno can be obtained by examin­ ing zinc over most of a year (Cahill et al. 2003). The persistent presence of very fine zinc occurs throughout the entire year and becomes dominant in wintertime, closely associated with other vehicular aerosols. The zinc to very fine mass ratio was close to that seen in laboratory diesel tests (Zielinska et al. 2003).

Data on Very Fine and Ultrafine Aerosols
Very fine aerosols were collected on DRUM stage 8, 0.26 to

0.09 µ,m, and integrated over the 17-day study period to match the integrating ultrafine filters. Ultrafine aerosols were collected on the same 47-mm Teflon filters as the organic samples and av­ eraged over the same 17-day period. The filters were analyzed by scans of S-XRF every 0.5 mm across the filter diameter. All filters were uniform except for Chico, which had contamination on one edge. This was easily avoided by modifying the aver­ aging program. Two different averages were generated: one by summing the spectra, then analyzing and the other by averaging the typical eighteen individual elemental results.

In Table 3a, we show a summary time averaged DRUM very
fine data and, in Table 3b, the integrated ultrafine filter data for the study period.

TABLE 2
Mass values for PM10 on January 19 and PM2.s averaged from January 5 though January 22, 2009. The value of ~9 for PM2.s is estimated assuming the same PM10/PM2.s ratio as the other cities Site Redding Chico Sacramento Fresno Bakersfield
Size (µ,m) PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10 PM10
Mass (1/19) (µ,g/m3) 12 37 29 46 95
Size (µ,m) PM2.s PM2.s PM2.s PM2.s PM2.s
Mass average (µ,g/m3) ~9 27.3 30.2 40.9 51.0
Cahill -- 00000290
1128 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.
.......- PM,, mus (IMPROVE!, ·.., · Organic carbon, . ..,.. • PM,_, mass (ARBI -• Ammonium nitrate -- Elemental c,nbon
60 ,---------------------------,
.! ,,,,✓----,
• 50 E I,-,-=-,
~~41 ,.,,~ ✓ \. .? 15 40 :,
(J
g_ 30
..
~ 20 ;;,
§ 10
i
/ '\ /
··········••r-••·······················\·~,...~··· . -: ,----•, ~ ., ' ✓~ ' ~
✓ ' ......
.... __ - ·-::-~ .... ·- ' ... .,,, - -- ..... ,._ __ ..... ~ ... --·-~---lt•-·-·-·-irr" .... --·~ ~ ..... - ~ 4 7 10 13 16 19 22
Jenuery 2009
FIG. 6. IMPROVE and ARB PM2.s data at the Fresno site during the study.

Note the dominance of ammonium nitrate in the mass maxima.

The values in bold represent vehicular sources identified in the next section of this article. The copper ultrafine values are suspect from contamination by copper containing filter holders.

Knorr is non-soil potassium, corrected by the Calcium content, and a standard IMPROVE tracer of wood smoke (Malm et al. 1994). MDL is minimum detectable limit. Uncertainties are nominally ±5%, and detailed quality assurance and uncertain­ ties are in the supplemental information.

The correlations of sulfur (ammonium sulfate) and selenium are driven by the oil extraction and refining near Bakersfield (Figure 10). But there are strong associations between many metals and IHD in both the very fine and ultrafine modes. Al­ though mass levels in the very fine and ultrafine modes are low, the concentration of metals was significant. Thus metals are a major contributor to particle numbers, many presumably in insoluble compounds. Examining spatial trends for very fine metals with known vehicular origins, we see at Bakersfield a clear north to south enhancement of many very fine metals that far exceeds the x 1.6 increase in PM2.s mass for the same period (Figure 9).
·•- Potauh.1m, • • • Calcium, -- Iron
,eo
.!l 5110 .,
E
14 400
::,
u
~ JGO
"' E
f 280
Cl!
'
0 C
"' 180 :z '-.
•·-· 0
<0.09 l.2i - 0.3 ◄ l.5i - 0.75 1.15 - 2:.5 5.0 to - 10
!Ul9 - l.2i 0.3 ◄ - 0.56 0.75 - 1.15 2.5 - 5.0
Particle aerodynamic diameter micrometers
FIG. 7. Size distribution for Fresno aerosols.
.. .. -;
E
u
:i:i ::,
" ... .

Q.
• E . ..

G
0 C
• :z
1200
1000
800
800
-400
200
._ 2.5 - 1.1~ iron, • • • 0.26 - 0.0& iron x 100
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1-4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
January
FIG. 8. Fine and very fine nonsoil iron at Fresno. Recall that the study began directly after a rainfall event and had almost no winds to stir up dust. Thus we propose that most of the iron is roadway and vehicle derived.

The upward trend of sulfur must be interpreted in accord with the meteorology, which moves air from Bakersfield towards the Delta. Typical elements associated with vehicles include non­ soil iron, phosphorus, zinc, nickel, and copper. From the ratio present in the zinc thiophosphate in lubricating oil, there are clearly additional zinc sources present at all sites except perhaps Bakersfield.

In summary, there are significant contributions of metals in the very fine and ultrafine mode, many of which rise to their highest levels at Bakersfield (Figures 11 and 12) and correlate strongly with the IHD mortality data.

DISCUSSION
Sources of the Metals
The generation of metals in the ultrafine mode requires high temperatures and/or pressures. Thus, many sources of metals from vehicles, such as zinc from tire wear, are not candidates for sources ofultrafine aerosols. Two potential sources are engines, and especially diesel engines because of the high temperatures and pressures involved, and the braking systems in vehicles. .l! .

E 15
.!:!
..0 ::, u .. 10 .

0..
.
ti
15, 5
g . :z
Raddirtg Cllllico Sacreune..-0 Fre••o Bak.era1ield
Transect north to south
Nonsoil Iron
-,
Copper
•➔-1
Zmc
Phosphorus
-o~
FIG. 9. Very fine transition metals with known vehicular sources, zinc and phosphorus from zinc thiophosphate in lubricating oil, iron, copper, and zinc potentially from braking systems.

Cahill -- 00000291
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 1 1129
TABLE 3a
Aerosol mass data from the study and their correlation to IHD mortality. Uncertainties are nominally ±5%, and detailed quality assurance and uncertainties are in the supporting materials. Concentration (ng/m3) of very fine (0.09 to 0.26 µ,m) aerosols Site Redding Chico Sacramento Fresno Bakersfield Correlation r2 to IHD Ammonium sulfate 45 82 75
Chlorine <0.4 2.5 1.8
Phosphorus <0.1 0.4 0.8
Potassium (non-soil) 18.0 54.1 10.9
Vanadium <0.1 0.03 0.04
Chromium <0.1 O.Ql 0.01
Iron (non-soil) 2.2 1.8 1.0
Nickel <0.03 0.03 0.07
Copper 0.7 0.6 0.16
Zinc 1.9 3.9 1.1
Arsenic 0.15 0.2 0.07
Selenium <0.1 <0.1 0.09
Bromine 0.5 0.7 1.3
Lead 0.1 0.4 0.4
While there is considerable information on the total par­ ticulate emissions from vehicles, the information on ultrafine metals from vehicular exhaust is limited (Kleeman et al. 2000; Zielinska et al. 2003, 2004). The Zielinska et al.'s (2003) study involved detailed analysis of diesel exhaust. As part of the study, we analyzed for 32 elements collected in 11 tests with a 14-stage nano-MOUDI (lowest stage 0.01 µ,m). Sulfur, phosphorus and the metals zinc, calcium, and, in one of the 11 tests, lead, all peaked generally in the 0.10-0.056 µ,m modes (Zielinska et al. 2003). In addition to elemental and organic carbon, the tracer elements were assigned to sources: sulfur was from the fuel 120 580 0.98

0.7 2.6 0.22

0.7 4.0 0.98
45 32.7 0.00

0.2 <0.1 0.04

0.6 0.2 0.04

2.3 15.5 0.95

0.05 0.16 0.95

0.27 1.1 0.47

4.9 12.5 0.88

0.54 1.07 0.87

0.10 0.24 0.95

1.1 4.2 0.98

0.55 2.0 0.97
(CA low sulfur), the zinc and phosphorus from the zinc thio­ phosphate stabilizer in the lubricating oil, and calcium from an antacid additive. No other transition metals were seen in statis­ tically significant amounts.

A second potential source of very fine and ultrafine metals is the braking systems of cars and trucks, since high tempera­ tures and/or pressures are involved in this process. The brake drums have evolved from the massive, heat-conductive struc­ tures and generally well cooled in the past and now are often made of "grey iron," roughly 90% iron with the admixture of a few percent carbon, plus copper, silicon, and other metals in TABLE 3b
Concentration (ng/m3) of ultrafine ( <0.09 µ,m) aerosols Site Redding Chico Sacramento Fresno Bakersfield Correlation r2 to IHD Ammonium sulfate 122 215 270 470 999 0.95
Chlorine 2.5 5.1 0.6 3.0 0.5 -0.38
Phosphorus 1.3 0.6 4.0 3.3 10.5 0.96
Potassium 40.7 138.1 76.9 176.1 70.9 -0.05
(non-soil)
Vanadium 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.21 0.02 0.00
Chromium 0.13 0.04 0.75 0.28 0.32 0.03
Iron (non-soil) 3.9 3.9 14.3 7.7 27.7 0.88
Nickel 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.6 0.70
Copper na na na na na na
Zinc 8.6 11.2 14.3 22.4 12.3 0.00
Arsenic 0.41 0.64 1.1 2.6 1.5 0.12
Selenium 0.47 0.64 0.62 1.1 0.9 0.05
Bromine 11.2 12.4 13.7 25.3 18.9 0.16
Lead 1.7 2.2 2.5 3.6 2.6 0.06
na: not available.

Cahill -- 00000292
1130 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.
..... Potnslul'II, -- Sulfur (t'or amm.sulfat11. x 4.12t!} -- Chromium, ·-+ - Nickel, -- Lead, · ..__ Arsenic 300 4 --------------------~
2110
'.€ 200 ,,,
E
~ 1!10
g'
C
~ 100
CIO
0 L.__...J._ ___ -'---------'-----'-------'---'
R11ddlng Chico Sa~ra111•nto Fresno Bt1kersfi11ld
CA C•ntral Vall•y north to south transect
FIG. 10. Ultrafine potassium and sulfur.
smaller amounts, making them like brake pads an erodible sur­ face. Brake pads are far more complex in composition and are traditionally designed to erode.

Limited information is available on a complete inventory of vehicular expendables. An early one was developed as a part of the extensive California freeway lead and particulate studies in the 1970s. In Cahill and Feeney (1973), the UC Davis vehicle fleet was studied for all forms of expendables, including fuel, oil, brake wear, exhaust train erosion, tires, etc., by directly mea­ suring mass loss at replacement intervals. While many of the results are uncertain due to technological changes in the fuels and engines, measurements of brake drums and brake pads gave ~5 and 108 gm, respectively, at a replacement cycle of 58,400 km, or < 1 and 15 mg/km. However, these data were based on asbestos-containing brake pads and may not be reliable, which also impacts the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) PARTS model estimate of 20.6 mg/km, based on 1985 data.

In terms of brake drums, changes in brake drums from iron to "grey iron" containing graphite could materially increase that source of particles from prior values. Even with the uncertain­ ties, it is clear that brakes contribute a significant component of typical vehicle total emission rates. However, averages are mis­ leading because braking is only used for limited times. Thus the emission rates at stoplights and especially extensive mountain 30 2(1
i
20 E
~ 1!!
"' 0
C:
"' 10 z
5 0
---- Phosphorus, ·-+-- Iron (nonsoll~ ......,_ Zinc
'
• f
~·~- ,' / --~ --.///
-----······----R•dding Chieo Sa~rn,tnto Fresno Bakersfield CA Central Valley north to south transect
FIG. 11. Typical vehicular ultrafine metals.
j
C>
E 3 u
:.0
::I
u
ii 2 a. .,
E
! OI
0 C .. z
0 Redding Chico Sacramento Fresno Bakersfield
CA Central Valley north to south transect
FIG. 12. Additional ultrafine elements.
down grades will be much higher than these values. It is worth noting that traditional dynamometer studies and roadside side studies near freeways are likely to miss brake wear as an emis­ sion source, thus these emissions may be largely unrecognized by the majority of vehicle emission and assessment studies.

Information on brake pad composition was reviewed by
Kennedy et al. (2002) and Chan and Stachowiak (2004). The lat­ ter report, "A multitude of different brake pads have sprung onto the market in the post-asbestos brake pad revolution, each with their own unique composition," often proprietary. Brake pads comprise four subcomponents: (1) frictional additives, abra­ sives, and lubricants; (2) fillers; (3) a binder; and (4) reinforcing fibers for strength. The brake pads are described as metallic, semimetallic, with organic components, and organic. Asbestos to be used mainly as a reinforcing fiber in brake pads, and after its removal, a variety of materials have been used, including iron fibers. Some of them include potentially hazardous materi­ als potassium titanate and sepiolite, a magnesium-silicon com­ pound, both of which have potential health hazards. Organic aramaid fibers (e.g., Kelvar) and ceramics such as alumina and carbides are becoming more popular as prices decline. Fillers include a wide variety of organic (cashew hulls, old tires) and inorganic materials (barium sulfate is popular). The frictional components include graphite and metal sulfides including cop­ per, antimony, tin, zirconium, and lead. Copper in particular has been identified as a problem in aquatic systems, and legislation to remove it from brake pads has been passed in the states of Washington and California.

While there is enormous variability in the data, as shown by the percentile distributions, the four main elements are iron, copper, zinc, and nickel (Table 4). In summary, there is a wide variety of very fine and ultrafine metals that may arise from brake drums and pads, but iron and copper are clearly two major components.

Information on ambient and near source very fine and ultra­ fine metals was derived from two additional studies in Sacra­ mento. The first was a complete analysis ofultrafine ( <0.09 µ,m) Cahill -- 00000293
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 1 1131
TABLE 4
Summary of concentrations of elements in New Zealand
brake pads, from largest to smallest concentrations of
transition metals plus heavier elements. The distributions are shown to emphasize with wide variability between
manufacturers
Element (ppm) 10th percentile Median 90th percentile
Iron 11,700 18,300 190,000
Copper 29 5000* 116,000
Zinc 127 1630 37,400
Nickel 44 342 652
Manganese 143 315 1088
Lead 6 50 949
Barium 558 3195 6144
*Preferred interim median for copper due to high variability.

Barium (median = 3100 ppm) was not resolved in our data due to interferences.
aerosols over a 2-week period, November-December, 2007, as part of an 8-month DRUM to FRM intercomparison with the California ARB in central Sacramento at the 13th and T Street ARB site (Cahill and Barnes 2009, supplementary materials), and the second was a 2007 study directly measuring aerosols across a heavily traveled (65,000 v/day, 1.5% diesels) secondary street in Sacramento, Watt Avenue (Cahill et al. 2007, supple­ mentary materials).

One period in the Sacramento ARB intercomparison in
November and December was chosen for mass closure through addition of surrogate organic measurements (Cahill et al. 1989; Malm et al. 1994 ). As anticipated, most of the ultrafine mass is organic (Table 5). Note also that the only nondetermined major species, nitrate, could not have been a major factor in Sacra­ mento or the agreement would not have been as robust. Farther south in the San Joaquin Valley, nitrates are always a major fac­ tor. The presence of the fine transition metals in these quantities represents a very large number of particles. Note that the zinc value seen in Sacramento in 2007, 11.5 ng/m3, is similar to the transect zinc value in 2009, 14 ng/m3•
The second study was performed at Watt Avenue, the site of several studies on the impact of Watt Avenue on Arden Middle School (Cahill et al. 2007, supplementary materials). The Watt Avenue study utilized the same sampler as the ARB study, with two identical eight stage DRUM samplers with greased Mylar substrates and a47-mm stretched Teflon after filter for the <0.09 µ,m ultrafine mode. The school sampler was 15 m downwind from the nearest traffic lane on the roof of the one story building and 50 m south of a stoplight on Arden Way that backed traffic up to and south of the Arden Middle School site. Thus consid­ erable braking occurred directly upwind of the Arden Middle School sampler. The far upwind sampler was 500 m away in a residential neighborhood. Samples were collected continuously Phosphorus
--. nonsoil Iron
--· Copper
Zin<:
-♦•
Redding Chico Sacramento Fresno Bakersfield
FIG. 13. Very fine plus ultrafine aerosols with known vehicular sources. over 8 weeks in February and March, 2007. The results of these studies are shown in Table 5.

Through the direct upwind downwind measurements across
Watt Avenue, the source of the metals seen in downtown Sacra­ mento can also be shown to be largely derived from traffic sources despite the fact that the nearest freeway to the 13th and T Street site is over 1 km away.

Almost identical values of the same four elements are seen in Sacramento and especially in Bakersfield (Table 6 and Figure 13).

Since the ultrafine four elements, non-soil iron, nickel, cop­ per, and zinc, and a few others, are traffic related, we can ex­ amine the mass levels in the Central Valley to see how the levels correspond to traffic. Since the wind flows downslope across Bakersfield from the south, where 1-5 descends from the Grapevine and Hwy 58 descends from Tehachapi Pass, we used the sum of the cars plus 10 times the trucks, to roughly match to emission rates, and compared the ratio of traffic to PM2.s at the ends of the Valley and across the Chico and Fresno lateral transects for 1-5 plus Hwy. 99. For the valley ends, the traffic ra­ tio was 4.6 and the aerosol ratio 4.4, while for the central lateral transect, traffic was 2.1 and the aerosol was 1 .4. Therefore the PM2.s mass values in the study were similar to the local traffic volumes, and the ultrafine metals at Bakersfield are from the two major highways south of Bakersfield climbing and descending the mountain passes.

Support for this hypothesis comes from historical data taken in Bakersfield in winter, 1974-1976 (Cahill and Flocchini 1974; Flocchini et al. 1976). The historical data show that particulate pollution from cars was high in Bakersfield in the 1970s data.

Lead levels at Bakersfield, population circa 75,000 in 1975, in the average winter period were higher on average than in parts of the Los Angeles urban area. This is a clear indication that the local meteorology and geographical setting of Bakersfield results in it being highly impacted by vehicular sources, most likely vehicles on 1-5 and Hwy 58 as they climb out of or descend into the valley.

Cahill -- 00000294
1132 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.

TABLE 5
Measured and reconstructed ultrafine mass and elemental components in two studies in Sacramento, 2007. Watt 0.5 km is 500 m upwind; Watt 15 mis downwind. Sac Center is the ARB 13th and T Street site. There are no elemental carbon data or nitrate data, so the reconstructed mass is incomplete
Watt ave. upwind ( ~ 0.5 km)
Major components {-lglm3
Mass (gravimetric) Na
Mass (recon.) Na
Organics (H) Na
Sulfur (ammonium sulfate) 0.09
Chlorine (NaCl) 0.00
Soil 0.04
K non-soil (wood smoke) 0.04
Metals 0.01
Minor components ng/m3
Phosphorus 1.1
Vanadium 0.06
Chromium 2.2
Iron (non-soil) 5.2
Nickel 0.3
Copper 0.1
Zinc 1.2
Arsenic 0.16
Selenium 0.10
Bromine 0.8
Lead 0.5
Examining the current IHD mortality data from Figure 3, we observed that if we remove a totally arbitrary average back­ ground IHD mortality rate of 120 from the total rate ( about 2/3 of the valley average rate), and matching the Bakersfield result, the excess IHD mortality roughly scales with local truck traffic on the major freeways (CalTrans 2010) and the very fine-ultrafine iron (Figure 14).

The pattern reflects the pattern that the two major north-south freeways, 1-5 and Hwy 99, come close to each other only Watt ave. downwind (15 m) Sacramento center
{-lglm3 {-lglm3
Na 2.04
Na 2.15
na 1.72

0.18 0.34

0.00 0.04

0.08 0.048

0.14 0.053

0.09 0.035
ng/m3 ng/m3

1.0 2.4

0.18 0.15

1.3 0.45

34.9 17.0

16.3 3.5

9.8 8.3

17.3 11.5

0.46 0.6

0.13 0.3

1.1 3.7

2.3 4
at Sacramento-Stockton and Bakersfield. Note that car traf­ fic has a very different pattern because of the large auto­ mobile traffic on local Sacramento highways. When ultrafine aerosols alone are correlated with IHD mortality for the en­ tire Central Valley, the highest correlations are for phosphorus (r2 = 0.96) and iron (r2 = 0.88), both with known vehicular sources.

The association of IHD with toxic organic contaminants, specifically benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) and coronene (Cahill 2010), TABLE 6
Very fine and ultrafine metals with known vehicular sources Site Redding Chico Sacramento Fresno Bakersfield
Class Very fine + ultrafine Very fine+ ultrafine Very fine + ultrafine Very fine + ultrafine Very fine+ ultrafine Size 0.26-0 f-lm 0 .26---0 f-lm 0.26-0 f-lm 0.26-0 f-lm 0.26-0 f-lm Species
Phosphorus 1.3 1.0 1.2 4.0 14.5
Iron 6.1 5.7 15.3 10.0 43.2
Nickel 0.9 0.13 0.67 0.35 1.8
Copper 4.2 3.1 2.8 2.9 3.6
Zinc 10.5 15.1 15.4 27.3 24.8
Cahill -- 00000295
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 1 1133
-- AADTTruck trmnc m~or highways, ·• Iron (vf + uf) (nl)lm' '1000) CONCLUSIONS • .. Sc•l•d lechemle heart dlUHI mortality
!50,--------------------~
RtddinQ Chlto Sacramento Fruno B1ktrtfleld
Central Valley tan ■ ect north to aouth
FIG. 14. Association between local average annual daily truck (AADT) traffic on major freeways, scaled ischemic heart disease, and very fine plus ultrafine iron.
was examined but the pattern did not produce a fit to the IHD increase (Figure 15). The relatively high values of BaP at Chico in winter, observed for years in prior CARB toxics data reported in the ADAM database (ARB ADAM 2010), was traced to the burning of primarily pine wood.

Coronene is normally associated with the exhaust of auto­ mobiles, while BaP has known vehicular sources (diesels and cars) as well as wood smoke (Fujita et al. 2007; Riddle et al. 2007; Kleeman et al. 2009; Cahill 2010). The non-soil, nonwood smoke potassium was also observed by Gertler et al. (2003) in the Tuscarora Tunnel studies from light duty vehicles, but not from diesels. Thus, there appears to be a spark emission source of potassium and coronene in the very fine/ultrafine. A south valley enhancement was also seen in petroleum derived alka­ nes (Cahill 2010), which were present in the largest amounts in Fresno, lesser amounts in Bakersfield, and negligible elsewhere.

In summary, it does not appear that organic aerosols from wood smoke, diesels, and automobiles are a component in the IHD excess.
- • - B&nzo1alp)'l'1lno/3, -- Potassium (nonsoil} (ngtm• I. -+- Coronon& (x 2) ?01 ,----------------------,
' --~-----~---~-~---·
Redding Chico Sacram&nto Frnsno Bal(orsfi&ld
North to south transect
FIG. 15. Comparison ofultrafine BaP, potassium, and coronene.

Persistent enhancement of mortality associated with cardio- vascular and specifically IHD has been observed in the southern San Joaquin Valley since 1990, yet while there is a strong sta­ tistical association with mass, most of the mass is known to be relatively innocuous to the cardiovascular system. Most of the mass is ammonium nitrate, which is soluble in lung fluid. This makes ammonium nitrate unlikely as a source of cardiovascular disease. In order to examine potential causal agents, a profile was made of mass, inorganic, and organic components of mass in nine size modes, including ultrafines <0.09 µ,m, at five sites from Redding to Bakersfield during a 3-week period of strong stagnation, January 5-22, 2009. The strongest correaltions to IHD mortality were found in very fine (0.26-0.09 µ,m) to ul­ trafine metals, with most tied to vehicular sources. This result is supported by several independent lines of reasoning. First, there is an association with truck traffic and IHD throughout the Valley. Second, the four key transition elements, non-soil iron, nickel, copper, and zinc, are closely tied to vehicular sources through upwind-downwind measurements at Watt Avenue, a
secondary artery in suburban Sacramento. Third, the same four elements are found at the downtown ARB 13th and T Street site.

Fourth, there are known diesel sources of zinc and phosphorus, from zinc thiophosphate in lubricating oil, plus calcium as an antacid. No iron, nickel, or copper were seen in the diesel dy­ namometer tests, so these elements are not coming from engine wear. Conversely, brake pads include many elements, includ­ ing iron, nickel, copper, and zinc. The Watt Avenue data were taken just south of a stoplight, so braking was occurring. Heavy braking also occurs on the 1-5 "Grapevine" and Highway 58 downgrades, each more than a 1000 m descent, and both carry heavy truck traffic into Bakersfield, where the same elements are seen again correlating with increased rates of IHD.

Thus, in summary, we present here evidence that, while not conclusive, strongly supports the hypothesis that very fine and ultrafine transition metals are a causal factor in IHD in the Cen­ tral Valley of California. Removal of zinc thiophosphate from lubricating oil could greatly reduce the zinc concentration, while changes in brake drums and pads could reduce the non-soil iron, copper, zinc, and nickel concentrations in ambient air. After a 15-year fight that surfaced with concerns about the San Fran­ cisco Bay, on October 5, 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzeneg­ ger signed SB346, which requires brake pad manufacturers to reduce the use of copper to not more than 5% by 2021 and no more than 0.5% by 2025. The reasons were based on the toxicity of copper in water run-off from roads and follows similar action by Washington State.

Finally, it is clear that the lack of correlation between PM2.s (or PM1.o) composition and very fine and ultrafine aerosol composition makes measurements of the composition of very fine and ultrafine particles critical for obtaining causal relations to health impacts, both for organic and inorganic species.

Cahill -- 00000296
1134 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.

REFERENCES
ADAM. (2010). California Environmental Protection Agency-Air Resources Board. Retrieved from http:/ /www.arb.ca.gov/ ADAM
Bench, G., Grant, P., Ueda, D., Cliff, S., Perry, K., and Cahill, T. A. (2002). The Use of STIM and PESA to Measure Profiles of Aerosol Mass and Hydrogen Content, Respectively, Across Mylar Rotating Drums Impactor Samples.

Aerosol Sci. Technol., 36:642-651.

California Department of Health Services. (2010). Web Based Inquiry for Mortality Data. Retrieved from http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/ vsq/default.asp accessed 3 May, 2011.

Ca!Trans. (2010). CA Transportation Authority, Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California Highway System. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/truck2008final.pdf
Cahill, T., Cliff, S. S., Jimenez-Cruz, M., and Perry, K. (2003). Aerosols by Size, Time, and Composition in Support of the Fresno Asthmatic Children's Environment Study, 2001. Final Report to the California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T., Dutcher, D., Clark, C., Martin, J., McCarthy, T., and Lipnick, D. (1998). Comparison of Cardiac and Stroke Mortality to Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, and Particulate Air Pollutant Concentrations in the Sacramento Valley Region. Report to the Health Effects Task Force, American Lung Association Sacramento Emigrant Trails, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T. A., and Barnes, D. E. (2009). Comparison of Fine Mass, UC Davis DRUM versus FRM, at the Air Resources Board 13th and T Street Site. Final Report to the California ARB, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T. A., Cahill, T. M., Spada, N. J., and Barnes, D. E. (2007). Organic and Elemental Aerosols near Watt Avenue, Late Winter-Spring, 2007. Final Report to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T. A., Eldred, R. A., Motallebi, N., and Malm, W. C. (1989). Indirect Measurement of Hydrocarbon Aerosols Across the United States by Non­ sulfate Hydrogen-Remaining Gravimetric Mass Correlations. Aerosol Sci.

Technol., 10:421-429.

Cahill, T. A., and Feeney, P. J. (1973). Contribution of Freeway Traffic to Airborne Particulate Matter. Final Report of the California Air Resources Board, Contract ARB-502, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T. A., and Flocchini, R. G. (1974). Regional Monitoring of Smog Aerosols. Annual Reports to the California Air Resources Board, Contract 2---006, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T. A., Goodart, C., Nelson, J. W., Eldred, R. A., Nasstrom, J. S., and Feeney, P. J. (1985). Design and Evaluation of the Drum Impactor, in Pro­ ceedings of International Symposium on Particulate and Multi-phase Pro­ cesses, T. Ariman and T. Nejat Veziroglu, eds., Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC, Vol. 2, pp. 319-325.

Cahill, T. M. (2010). Size-Resolved Organic Speciation of Wintertime Aerosols in the California Central Valley. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44:2315-2321.

Chan, D., and Stachowiak, G. W. (2004). Review of Automotive Brake Friction Materials. Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs., 218(9):953-966.

Chen, L. W. A., Watson, J. G., Chow, J. C., and Magliano, K. L. (2007).

Quantifying PM2.5 Source Contributions for the San Joaquin Valley with Multivariate Receptor Models. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41(8):2818- 2826.

Chow, J. C., Chen, L. W. A., Watson, J. G., Lowenthal, D. H., Magliano, K.

A., Turkiewicz, K., and Lehrman, D. E. (2006). PM2.5 Chemical Com­ position and Spatiotemporal Variability During the California Regional PM! 0/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS). J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111:

Dl0.

Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Lowenthal, D. H., Chen, L. W. A., Zielinska, B., Mazzoleni, L. R., and Magliano, K. L. (2007). Evaluation of Organic Markers for Chemical Mass Balance Source Apportionment at the Fresno Supersite. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7(7):1741-1754.

Chow, J. C., Watson, J. G., Lowenthal, D. H., and Magliano, K. L. (2008).

Size-Resolved Aerosol Chemical Concentrations at Rural and Urban Sites in Central California, USA. Atmos. Res., 90(2-4):243-252.

Devlin, R. (2003). What We Know and What We Think We Know About Health Effects of Fine Particles; Is It Enough? American Association of Aerosol Research (AAAR), Annual Meeting, Charlotte, NC.

Flocchini, R. G., Cahill, T. A., Shadoan, D. J., Lange, S. J., Eldred, R. A., Feeney, P. J., Wolfe, G. W., Simeroth, D. C., and Suder, J. K. (1976). Monitoring California's Aerosols by Size and Elemental Composition. Environ. Sci.

Technol., 10:76--82.

Fujita, E. M., Zielinska, B., Campbell, D. E., Arnott, W. P., Sagebiel, J. C., Mazzoleni, L., Chow, J. C., Gabele, P. A., Crews, W., Snow, R., Clark, N. N., Wayne, W. S., and Lawson, D. R. (2007). Variations in Speciated Emissions from Spark-Ignition and Compression-Ignition Motor Vehicles in California's South Coast Air Basin. J. Air Waste Manage., 57(6):705-720.

Gertler, A., Abu-Allaban, M., Coulombe, W., Gillies, J. A., Pierson, W. R., Rogers, C. F., Sagebiel, J.C., Tarnay, L., and Cahill, T. A. (2003). Measure­ ments of Mobile Source Particulate Emissions in a Highway Tunnel. Int. J.

Vehicle Des., 27:86-93.

Hayes, T. P., Kinney, J. J. R., and Wheeler, N. J.M. (1984). California Surface Wind Climetology State of California Air Resources Board, Aerometric Data Division, Sacramento, California.

Kennedy, P., Gadd, J., and Moncrieff, I. (2002). Emission Factors for Contam­ inants Released by Motor Vehicles in New Zealand. Ministry of Transport, Auckland, New Zealand.

Kleeman, M. J., Riddle, S. G., Robert, M.A., Jakober, C. A., Fine, P. M., Hays, M. D., Schauer, J. J., and Hannigan, M. P. (2009). Source Apportionment of Fine (PMl.8) and Ultrafine (PM0.l) Airborne Particulate Matter During a Severe Winter Pollution Episode. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43(2):272-279.

Kleeman, M. J., Schauer, J. J., and Cass, G. R. (2000). Size and Composi­ tion Distribution of Fine Particulate Matter Emitted from Motor Vehicles.

Environ. Sci. Technol., 34(7):1132-1142.

Lippmann, M. (2009). Semi-Continuous Speciation Analyses for Ambient Air Particulate Matter: An Urgent Need for Health Effects Studies. J. Expo. Sci.

Epidemiol., 19:235-247.

Malm, W. C., Sisler, J. F., Huffman, D., Eldred, R. A., and Cahill, T. A. (1994).

Spatial and Seasonal Trends in Particle Concentration and Optical Extinction in the United States. J. Geophys. Res., 99(Dl):1347-1370.

Pope, C. A., III, Thun, M., Namboodiri, M. M., Dockery, D. W., Evans, J. S., Speizer, F. E., and Heath, C. W., Jr. (1995). Particulate Air Pollution as a Predictor of Mortality in a Prospective Study of U.S. Adults. Am. J. Respir.

Crit. Care Med., 151(3) (Part 1):669---674.

Raabe, 0. G., Braaten, D. A., Axelbaum, R. L., Teague, S. V., and Cahill, T. A. (1988). Calibration Studies of the Drum Impactor. J. Aerosol Sci., 19(2):183-195.

Riddle, S. G., Jakober, C. A., Robert, M. A., Cahill, T. M., Charles, M.

J., and Kleeman, M. J. (2007). Large PAHs Detected in Fine Particu­ late Matter Emitted from Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles. Atmos. Environ., 41(38):8658-8668.

Wesolowski, J. J., John, W., Devor, W., Cahill, T. A., Feeney, P. J., Wolfe, G., and Flocchini, R. (1977). Collection Surfaces of Cascade Impactors, in X­ Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Environmental Samples. T. Dzubay, ed., Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 121-130.

Zielinska, B., Goliff, W., McDaniel, M., Cahill, T., Kittelson, D., and Watts, W. (2003). Chemical Analyses of Collected Diesel Particulate Matter Sam­ ples in the E-43 Project. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, COLORADO.

Zielinska, B., Sagebiel, J., McDonald, J. D., Whitney, K., and Lawson, D.

R. (2004). Emission Rates and Comparative Chemical Composition from Selected in-use Diesel and Gasoline Fueled Vehicles. J. Air Waste Manage.

Assoc., 54:1138-1150.

Cahill -- 00000297

EXHIBIT 9
AR002810
Aerosol Science and Technology, 45:1135-1142, 2011
Copyright © American Association for Aerosol Research
ISSN: 0278-6826 print/ 1521-7388 online
DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2011.582196
Very Fine and Ultrafine Metals and lschemic Heart Disease in the California Central Valley 2: 197 4-1991
Thomas A. Cahill, 1,2 David E. Barnes,1 Earl Withycombe, 2 and Mitchell Watnik3 1DELTA Group, University of California, Davis, California, USA 2The Health Effects Task Force, Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails, Sacramento, California, USA
3The Statistical Laboratory, University of California, Davis, California, USA The southern part of Central Valley of California in winter has long had high PM10 mass, which until about 1990 included sul­ fate, vanadium, and nickel from the burning of crude oil used to generate steam to enhance heavy petroleum recovery. In roughly 1990, natural gas became the major energy source used for steam generation. In 1989-1991, data were collected throughout Cali­ fornia on the mortality from strokes and ischemic heart disease (IHD). Although no spatial variability was seen for strokes, the southern San Joaquin Valley was found to have IHD mortality rates roughly 60% greater than the rest of the valley. PM10 was statistically identified as the major factor associated with the IHD mortality. However, when the rate of IHD was reexamined in the 2003-2007 period, a sharp reduction, about 30%, was seen in the relative rates for southern San Joaquin Valley as compared with the northern Sacramento Valley. We have measured very fine and ultrafine vanadium and nickel aerosols in a winter experiment in 2009, which shows an order of magnitude reduction in vanadium and nickel aerosols as compared with the pre-1990 data, which is a consequence of the switch from burning crude oil to natural gas to generate the steam. The inference of a causal relationship between the reduced vanadium and nickel and the improved IHD rate is supported by a growing body of laboratory and epidemio­ logical work on the toxicity of vanadium and nickel, including from oceangoing ships burning crude or residual oil.

Received 14 October 2010; accepted 27 November 2010.

The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the input and over­ sight of the project by the ALASET Health Effects Task Force under Jananne Sharpless, Chair, and Betty Turner, ALASET liaison, HETF members Tom Cahill, Mel Knight, Michael Lipsett, Ralph Propper, Marc Schenker, Steve Van den Eden, and Earl Withycombe, as well as the suggestions of William Wilson, US EPA. The authors also wish to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District under its CEO, Norm Covell, and the Yolo-Solano AQMD, under its CEO, Larry Greene.

Finally, the authors wish to thank Ms. Jeanette Martin for her untiring assistance in designing and assembling the original report.

Address correspondence to Thomas A. Cahill, DELTA Group, Uni­ versity of California-Davis, One Sheids Ave., Davis, CA 95616, USA.

E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION
The Central Valley of California is well known for exhibiting in much of its area serious violations of federal PM10 , PM2.s, in winter, and ozone standards, in summer, matching or exceeding those seen for any commensurate area of the United States. Yet other parts of the valley share agriculturally based land uses and meteorology and do not exhibit serious violations of these stan­ dards. Although efforts continue to control particulate matter (PM) and ozone violations, this pollutant gradient offers an ideal situation to examine the effects of pollutants on health. Many of the confounding variables seen in comparison studies, such as meteorology, land use patterns, and cigarette smoking, are very similar throughout the Valley, and a wealth of data exists on the pollutants and their sources from district air monitoring and Air Resources Board (ARB) studies. The presence of detailed anal­ ysis of mortality from ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke during 1989-1991 reported by the Cardiovascular Disease Out­ reach and Epidemiology (CORE) Program (Kao et al. 1994) and the California Department of Health Services (CADHS 2010) provides a natural opportunity to compare the pollutant data and mortality data for the identical time ranges. While this ar­ ticle focuses on PM effects, the original report (Cahill et al. 1998) also examined the effects of ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) on IHD and stroke mortality; some of which are presented in this article for completeness. However, complexities in the spatial and temporal gradients of ozone require further inter­ pretation, and thus, they are not examined in any detail in this article.

BACKGROUND
The northwest-southeast trending 550 km by 100 km Cen­
tral Valley of California is one of the richest agricultural ar­ eas in the world (Figure 1). In addition, there are two major metropolitan areas in the Valley, the Sacramento-Fresno regions each with about 1 million residents, and otherwise towns are generally medium (circa a few 100,000) to small and spread 1135
Cahill -- 00000277
AR002811
1136 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.
1----1
1001:.m
FIG. 1. Map of the Central Valley of California. The northern part is referred to as the Sacramento Valley while the southern part is called the San Joaquin Valley. The areas within the dotted circumference vary in altitude from almost sea level in the Delta to a few I 00 m in elevation. The small arrows denote the typical winter wind patterns (Hayes et al. 1984).
throughout the Valley. The mean population density is about 60 people/km 2•
High summer temperatures in the Valley (mean daily high, July, 36°C ± 1 °C) lower the surface pressure and draw massive inputs of cool air into the Valley from the San Francisco Bay area, bringing with it oceanic aerosols and typical urban pollu­ tants enhanced by the major petrochemical industrial sites at the Carquinez Strait. These latter sources lie directly in the path for the cold, dense winds from the San Francisco Bay. These winds funnel down the entire San Joaquin Valley, south of the strait, but rarely penetrate north very far in the Sacramento Valley, north of the strait. Rainfall in the Valley is rare during the period from May through October.

In winter, there is slow drainage of cold air off the Sierra Nevada to the Valley floor (mean daily low, January, 3°C ± 1 °C) and then, at the rate of about 50 km/day, the air drains toward the lowest point, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, directly east of the Carquinez Strait. Thus, little impact from the San Francisco Bay area is seen on most winter days in the Central Valley beyond the immediate Delta region. Winter rainstorms and strong northwest winds periodically clean out the Valley.

Thus, the Valley tends to fall into two distinct and very different conditions: hot, dry summers with strong diurnal winds, and cool, foggy winters with long periods of stagnation. This results in two very different aerosol types: summer and winter (Figure 2).

In Figure 2, 24 h, one day in six PM10 mass at the Fresno 1st Street "Super-site" is shown (ADAM 2010). The site is in a largely residential neighborhood roughly 1 km east of the 2 3 4 s 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month of th• Year 2002
FIG. 2. PM10 mass at the Fresno "Super-site", 2002.
nearest major freeway, well away from agricultural operations. It is thus a good representation of what the average Fresno resident inhales. The annual pattern of PM10 mass has been consistent in the valley for many years, but this data only really became available around 1997, hence why Figure 2 uses more recent data to demonstrate the traditional annual cycle of particulate mass.

The health effects data are derived from CORE (Kao et al. 1996) and CADHS (2010). CORE collected city (>20,000 in­ habitant) and countywide data on mortality from stroke and IHD; the latter is the largest source of mortality in the Califor­ nia Central Valley accounting for about one fourth of all deaths.

The CORE data were corrected for age, > 35 years, and reduced to incidence per 100,000 residents. The results were then pre­ sented as a ratio to the California average values the both males and females. Individual city data were weighted and averaged to obtain countywide averages in order to match the air pollution data.

The effect of race was examined over the entire California dataset. The data were available only in three classifications:
"White," "Black," and "Other," with "Other" in the Central Val­ ley being largely Latinos. No statistically significant difference was seen in the IHD rates for the dominant > 75 years age group, but a slight enhancement of the rates for Blacks was seen in the 64- to 75-year cohort. For all ages, the mortality/100,000, 95% confidence limit, was 196 ± 3 for white males, 212 ± 9 for black males, and 199 ± 4 for other males; the corresponding values for females were 127 ± 3, 166 ± 5, and 135 ± 3. The stroke deaths, on the contrary, while only roughly one third of the rate of IHD mortality, showed stroke rates roughly twice as high for the "Black" and "Other" cohorts than the "White" cohort. Consideration was given to cigarette-smoking patterns, but no significant difference was seen along the length of the Valley (Table 1).

Four metrics for air pollution were studied, each with very different cardiovascular impacts: ozone (top 30 h and hours above 0.09 ppm), annual average CO, and annual average PM10 .

The approximate cigarette-smoking patterns were calculated Cahill -- 00000278
AR002812
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 2 1137
TABLE 1
Ischemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke mortality versus air pollutants in the Central Valley of California, 1989-1991 IHD rate vs. Stroke rate vs.

County (north CA average CA average Ozone top 30
to south) (%) (%) h (ppm)
Shasta -14 +9 0.095
Butte -27 -3 0.078
Sutter -4 +26 0.090
Placer -17 -4
Sacramento -6 +2 0.107
Yolo +2 +13
San Joaquin +15 +17 0.096
Stanislaus -7 -3 0.102
Madera +11 -23
Fresno +3 -12 0.129
Kings +17 +20 0.106
Tulare +22 +8 0.093
Kern +33 -11 0.111
from cigarette sales data. Correlations were calculated for all parameters and are presented in Table 2 and Figures 3 and

4. At some sites, measurements were lacking. No data were deleted.

To further investigate the statistical robustness of these data, we used "proc glm" on SAS version 9.1 for the analyses. Be­ cause there are only 13 observations in total, we did not feel that imputation would prove fruitful. Therefore, we ran mul­ tiple regression models with "percentage change of IHD" and "percentage change of stroke" as the outcome variables. The possible explanatory variables were "number of hours of ozone above 0.09 ppm" ("ozone"), "annual average PM less than 10 /lm, measured in micrograms per cubic meter" ("PM10"), and "percentage rate of smoking" ("smoking"). We checked the assumption of normality of the errors by formally using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the assumption of homoskedasticity in­ formally using residual plots.

The overall stroke model was not significant (p = 0.1108). We did not proceed further for that outcome. However, the overall IHD model was significant (p = 0.0330). We used backward elimination as the model selection strategy, for example, that ofNeter et al. (1996). Ozone and smoking were eliminated-in that order-leaving PM10 as the sole significant explanatory variable (p = 0.0026). The resulting linear regression is given PM10 annual
Ozone hours CO annual average Smoking rate
>0.09 (h) average (ppm) (/lg/m 3) average(%)
20 0.54 30 22.4
6 0.93 38 22.4
4 44 22.8
125 30 22.8
153 1.29 44 23.4
16 30 22.4
36 1.13 51 22.8
119 0.75 48 22.0
30 53 22.0
369 0.87 77 22.0
21 61 22.5
192 0.88 67 22.5
605 0.80 68 22.5
by
estimated percentage change of IHD = -41.5 + 0.87 x PM10 , and the corresponding r-squared value is 0.576. It is noteworthy that Fresno appears to be an outlier. If this point is removed, the slope and r-squared values jump dramatically. We have no cause to remove that point and we therefore use the model, as indicated earlier, as our finding. However, the Fresno value includes semirural sampling sites at the urban fringe that are not present in other San Joaquin Valley cities, which had at that time only a single city center site.

However, the strong association between aerosol mass and IHD posed a problem. As additional data were developed in the Central Valley from the IMPROVE program (Malm et al. 1994) and from extensive California studies (CRPAQS 2001, Cahill et al. 2003), it became clear that the major aerosol species that dominated fine mass was ammonium nitrate, with much smaller contributions from organic matter, including a wood smoke component, and ammonium sulfate. These are
however water soluble and have not been closely linked to IHD in animal and laboratory studies. (Devlin 2003; Lippmann 2009).

TABLE 2
Correlation of air pollution to mortality by IHD and stroke in the Central valley of California, 1989-1991 Mortality
Correlation to IHD
Correlation to stroke
Ozone average top 30 h (ppm) Ozone number hours> 0.09 (ppm) r2 = 0.18
r2 = 0.21
r2 = 0.27
r2 =0.l9
CO (ppm)
r2 < 0.05
r2 < 0.05
r2 = 0.56
r2 < 0.05
Cahill -- 00000279
AR002813
1138 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.
■ IHD II Annual average PM10 mass
FIG. 3. Comparison of death rate from IHD, compared to the California av­ erage, and annual PM10 inhalable aerosol mass. Shasta County is at the very northern end of the California Central Valley, and Kern County is at the southern end.
200 ~--------------------~
:€ 150
Q.
"' 1:11
f : 100
..
i
~ 50
.. " . " •
o~---------------------~
60 70 80 !10 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Relative rate of IHD mortality to CA average 1%)
FIG. 4. IHD mortality rate relative to the California average versus PM10. The parameters are associated by a regression r2 = 0.56.
90 ,------------------------,
80 70
60 1 50
::i.40 ~ 30
20 10
0'--------='-------------------'
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 11 12
2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month of the Year 2002
FIG. 5. PM2.s mass at the Fresno "Super-site," 2002, the same period used in Figure 2.
--- 1989-1991 -- 2003-2007
FIG. 6. IHD in the California Central valley, 1989-1991 versus 2003-2007.

The 1989-1991 data are scaled to match the Shasta-Butte data, 2003-2007, as diagnostic protocols differed.

Reduction of I HD Rates: 2003-2007 Versus 1989-1991
Beginning around 1999, data on aerosol in the Central Valley were enhanced by the availability of PM2.s mass and chemical speciation at some San Joaquin Valley sites. In Figure 5, the same period for the Figure 2, one day in six PM 10 mass is shown for 24 h daily fine PM25 mass (ADAM 2010). The old federal 24-h PM2.s standard was 65 {lglm 3 and the current 24-h standard is 35 {lglm 3, which is routinely violated in winter. The annual average standard is 15 {lglm 3•
The question of IHD and aerosols was revisited for the period 2003-2007 (Cahill et al. 2010). From the recent data, it became 200
100
!iO
0 _.... <0.6 micron• -- 0.6-3.S micron•
~ Vanadium
I\
) N\_ f"-.
'-. V
1 3 15 7 9 11 13 16 17 19 21 23 26 27 29 31
2 4 11 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 211 28 30
_,,_.. -<0.6 micron• -+- 0.6-3.6 micron•
250 r-----------------------~
200
e: 1so
0 .::: 100
60 Nickel
1 3 5 7 II 11 13 16 17 111 21 23 26 27 29 31
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 11!1 18 .0 22 2A 2a 28 30
January 1976
FIG. 7. Vanadium and nickel aerosols in Bakersfield, January 1976.

Cahill -- 00000280
AR002814
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 2 1139
ra Elemental carbon ■ Organic aerosols ■ Ammonium nitrate ~ Ammonium sulfate ■ Soil
30 25
20 \ 15
10 5
0 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
(a)
ail! PM 2_5 mass (gravimetric) ■ PM 2_5 mass (sum of speciu) 30 25
20 .., 15
i
:::t 10
5 0
11 11 11 12 12
November
12 12 12
December
(b)
1 1 1
January
1 1 2 2
February
2 FIG. 8. (a) and (b) showing PM2.s mass closure and major species. clear that a comparison of the IHD mortality, 1989-1991 versus 2003-2007, shows a major reduction, roughly 30%, that occurs in 2003-2007 for the counties north of Bakersfield (Figure 6).

The trend for the northern half of the Central Valley is similar, while Bakersfield in Kern County is only slightly reduced. Thus, the question arises as to the causes for the improvement in the IHD rate.

The compositional analysis of Central Valley aerosols dates back to the early 1970s, including an innovative program of UC Davis for the California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1973-1977 (Cahill et al. 1974; Flocchini et al. 1976; Barone et al. 1978; Motallebi et al. 1990a, 1990b). A total of 14,100 daily aerosol measurements were taken in three size modes (15-3.5 µ,m, 3.5-0.50 µ,m, and 0.50--0.0 µ,m) and analyzed for elemental content by particle-induced x-ray emission (PIXE) (Cahill 1995) at about fourteen separate sites, including the valley sites of Chico, Sacramento, Visalia, (100 km NNE of Bakersfield), and Bakersfield. Bakersfield had one of the highest levels of vanadium and nickel aerosols in California, but port areas (Oakland, Richmond, and Los Alamitos) were also high (Figure 7).

Neither vanadium nor nickel was seen in sizes above 3.5 µ,m diameter. The radically different vanadium/nickel ratios oc­ curred when winds came from the western (Taft, 40 km SW) or northern (Oil dale, 5 kmN) oil fields periods of stagnation, giving the highest pollution levels, favored sources in the much closer northern oil fields, some of which were within Bakersfield itself (Motallebi et al. 1990b ). In addition, there was an oil refinery in Oildale, with potentially different emissions than the crude oil burned for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). Also it is notewor­ thy that while the vanadium and nickel concentrations can vary by over an order of magnitude, the lead levels were relatively Cahill -- 00000281
AR002815
1140 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.
-- Sulfur 1!174 - Lead 1!174 Sulfur 200!1
Redding Chico Sacramento Vlsali:llfresno B11ker11fleld
Vanadium 1974 - • Nickel 1974 - Zinc 1974
711
!ill
◄ II
311
211
10 II
ReddiR<J Chico 811.aamenlo Vis11.lil!Jf'msno Bllkerslield North to south transect
FIG. 9. Lead and sulfur, 197 4-1976, versus sulfur, 2009, and vanadium, nickel, and zinc 1974-1976. Visalia lies between Bakersfield and Fresno. constant, indicating a continuous impact of traffic-derived aerosols at Bakersfield.

Recent compositional analysis of the PM2.s aerosols in the southern San Joaquin Valley also became available through the IMPROVE site at Sequoia National Park (NP) starting in 1992 (Malm et al. 1994). The Sequoia NP Ash Mountain site was at low elevation, near 600 m, and thus received aerosols from the valley floor whenever the inversion lifted to that level.

IMPROVE had anticipated the value of PM2.s mass and full speciation, using quality assurance protocols of "integral redun­ dancy" to measure major parameters by two or more indepen­ dent methods. Sulfur from PIXE on Teflon in Channel A (Cahill 1995) is compared with sulfates after a denuder on Nylon filters in Channel B. Organic matter measured by combustion from tandem quartz filters in Channel C is compared to organic mat­ ter estimates by nonvolatile hydrogen of Teflon in Channel A (Cahill et al. 1989). Iron was measured by both PIXE and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) on the Teflon filters of Channel A. Thus, the gravimetric mass can be directly compared to the sum of all species (Figure 8b) and all major components (Figure 8a).

Figure 8 shows periodic incursions of high aerosol levels throughout the winter whenever the valley inversion rises to the altitude of Ash Mountain. Other than during these incursions, aerosol mass levels are very low, a few {lglm 3• By choosing an arbitrary concentration of 10 {lglm 3, we can be assured that we are seeing San Joaquin Valley aerosols diluted by the high inversion levels necessary for the Ash Mountain incursions.

Finally, the excellent agreement between the mass of aerosol measured gravimetrically and the sum of species for all three IMPROVE channels (Figure 8a) shows that we are not missing any major component of the PM2.s mass.

Figure 5 showed that the violations of the annual and 24-h PM25 standards in the San Joaquin Valley are driven by the winter aerosols. The high PM2.s values generally correspond to stable conditions with low inversions, and the clean periods to synoptic rainstorms passing through the Valley. Figure 8b shows that winter composition is dominated by fine Dp < 2.5 /lm nitrates with smaller contributions from organic matter, wood smoke and vehicular exhaust, and some sulfates (IMPROVE 2010). The IMPROVE data also include fine metals, thus aiding our intercomparisons.

Winter data from the earlier efforts (Cahill et al. 1974, 2003; Flocchini et al. 1976) can be roughly compared with the current work (Cahill et al. 2010) by summing the four finest DRUM stages to obtain <0.56 /lm particles (Table 3 and Figure 6).

Addressing the potential health impacts of these data, vana­ dium and nickel have the highest mortality risk coefficients of seventeen fine particulate matter (FPM) components (Lippmann et al. 2006). The elevated levels seen in 1974-1976 were sharply reduced as early as 1992-1993, using the vanadium and nickel levels in the southern San Joaquin Valley from the Sequoia IM­ PROVE site, although the Sequoia NP site's PM2.s data are not directly comparable to the valley floor's very fine ( <0.5 /lm) particle data. These data are shown in Figure 9. For compari­ son's sake, vanadium and nickel have current annual averages in FPM of 1.9 ng/m3 across sixty metropolitan areas (MSAs) (Lippmann et al. 2006).

Examining the potential sources for the very fine (in this case <0.5 /lm) particles (Table 3 and Figure 6), we see sulfur plus metals associated with crude oil combustion (vanadium and nickel), as well as lead and other vehicular metals. Kern County has very large reserves of crude oil, most of which lie just north and west of Bakersfield, although there was and is some oil extraction within the city itself. The Kern County oil fields have a heavy crude oil that requires EOR techniques such as steam injection to extract. Initially, the steam was generated by burning the crude oil itself, resulting in high pollution lev­ els. In 1979, violations of federal air quality standards required Kern County to apply strict controls on sulfur dioxide, nitro­ gen dioxide, and particulate emissions, which included metals vanadium and nickel. EOR by crude oil combustion dropped slowly, 1980-1990, and then dramatically with the increasing availability of natural gas, with an immediate improvement in air quality by the early 1990s (CA Almanac). Thus, the popula­ tion subject to IHD mortality in Bakersfield 1989-1991 had at least two decades of exposure to elevated high levels of very fine to ultrafine transition metals, specifically vanadium and nickel at 10-20 times the current US averages.

Laboratory data on the impact of vanadium and nickel
aerosols has become more extensive (Zhang et al. 2009).

Thus, we can hypothesize that the effective control of the Cahill -- 00000282
AR002816
METALS AND ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE 2 1141
TABLE 3
Comparison between January 1974-1976, averaged, and January 2009. The four finest DRUM stages of the 2009 data have been summed to be PM < 0.56 µ,m to better match the PM < 0.5 µ,m data of the earlier ARB/UCD aerosol network. The Sequoia NP and Fresno winter 2002-2003 data are of PM2.s
Valley transect 2009 [January 2009 (ng/m 3) <0.56 µ,m]
Redding
Chico
Sacramento
Fresno
Bakersfield
Fresno PM2.s (ng/m 3)
Winter 2002
Sequoia NP ( ~600 m), 10 episodes PM2.s > 10 µ,g/m 3
Sulfur

88.8 136.9
246.0
261.4
505.0
266.2
Vanadium

0.2 0.5

0.4 0.3

0.2 0.47
Nickel

1.0 0.4

0.1 0.5

2.3 Zinc

13.9 5.2

6.9 40.3

32.0 12.7
Lead

2.5 2.1

1.6 4.9

9.4 1.2
Winter
2002-2003 (ng/m 3) 194 0.2

0.22 0.1

0.1 4.7 1.0
Winter 1992-1993 (ng/m 3) 562 0.7 6.0 2.0
Valley transect 1974-1976 [January 1974-1976 (ng/m 3) average, <0.5 µ,m diameter] Redding na na na na na
Chico 170 7 10 483
Sacramento 375 0 1
8 38
18 720
Visalia 225 17 19 593
Bakersfield 1685 19 61 1714
Port of Los Angeles
August-September, 2008
crude-oil-derived metals in the late 1980s may be responsible for the decreased IHD death rate at sites north of Bakersfield in the 1990s and beyond. This hypothesis is supported by other studies, such as the sharp drop in mortality after a sharp drop in sulfur, vanadium, and nickel in Hong Kong when the sul­ fur levels in fuels were lowered by edict (Hedley et al. 2002; Lippmann et al. 2006). The presence of high levels of nickel in New York City from residual oil combustion in buildings is hypothesized to be a causal factor in the enhanced mortality Nlcktl 0.25-0.09
25 ,------------------------.

FIG. 10. Very fine (0.26 > Dp > 0.09 µ,m) vanadium and nickelin Wilmington, CA, downwind during daylight hours at the Port of Los Angeles. 2565 16 4 13 6
associated with PM2.s (Peltier et al. 2009; Peltier and Lippmann 2010).

The current data also have relevance to the emission of sulfur, vanadium, and nickel by oceangoing ships. Recent data in New York and New Jersey (Peltier et al. 2009), and the Port of Los Angeles (Cahill et al. 2009), show the impacts of oceangoing ships burning residual or bunker oil. In the Los Angeles study, the average concentrations of fine sulfur, vanadium, and nickel in the coastal town of Wilmington in August 2008 were 2565, 16, and 4.4 ng/m 3, respectively (Table 3). Southern winds bring aerosols from the Port of Los Angeles into Wilmington routinely during part of each day (Figure 10). Ultrafine particles were not collected in this study, so the actual values could have been significantly higher than these values. Thus, on the basis of the Bakersfield data, the enhanced rates of IHD are predicted in the area.

CONCLUSION
IHD mortality in the Central Valley of California, corrected for age, race, sex, and smoking, was almost 60% greater at the more polluted southern end of the Central Valley than the less polluted northern end in 1989-1991 despite similar meteorol­ ogy and land use patterns throughout the Valley. A significant association, r2 = 0.56, is seen between IHD mortality and PM10, but negligible correlation, r2 < 0.05, is seen with stroke mortal­ ity. When PM10 data are converted to an estimated PM2.s mass Cahill -- 00000283
AR002817
1142 T. A. CAHILL ET AL.
by using more recent measurements, these results are similar to other studies such as the "6 Cities" study (Dockery et al. 1993) in mortality increase per particulate mass; 1.9% mortality in­ crease per {lglm 3 of PM2.s for "6 Cities," while 1.8% mortality increase per {lglm 3 of estimated PM25 for this study, despite major differences in meteorology and pollutant mix. No associ­ ation was seen between CO and any health impact. Ozone was only weakly correlated with HID and stroke. However, strong east-west ozone gradients were not corrected for in this work, and thus, these results for ozone must be viewed as merely indicative of the possible impacts.

The sharp reduction seen, when the IHD data were reexam­ ined in the period 2003-2007, was coincident with a reduction in the high levels of vanadium ( 19 ng/m 3) and nickel (38 ng/m3) due to oil field operations from before 1974 to after 1990, when new protocols were adopted. The vanadium and nickel levels in 2009 were close to the national average values, both roughly

1.9 ng/m3• The relatively smaller reduction in IHD rate in Bak­ ersfield itself is associated with the continuing impacts of ve­ hicular very fine and ultrafine metals (Cahill et al. 2010, this issue).

REFERENCES
ADAM. (2010). ADAM California Environmental Protection Agency-Air Resources Board, ADAM Data Summaries. Retrieved from
www.arb.ca.gov/adam
Barone, J. B., Cahill, T. A., Eldred, R. A., Flocchini, R. G., Shadoan, D. J., and Dietz, T. M. (1978). A Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Visibility Degradation at Four California Cities. Atmos. Environ., 12:2213-2221.

Cahill, T., Cliff, S. S., Jimenez-Cruz, M., and Perry, K. (2003). Aerosols by Size, Time, and Composition in Support of the Fresno Asthmatic Children's Environment Study, 2001. Final Report to the California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T., Dutcher, D., Clark, C., Martin, J., McCarthy, T., and Lipnick, D. (1998). Comparison of Cardiac and Stroke Mortality to Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, and Particulate Air Pollutant Concentrations in the Sacramento Valley Region. Report to the Health Effects Task Force, American Lung Association Sacramento Emigrant Trails, Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T. A. (1995). Compositional Analysis of Atmospheric Aerosols, in Particle-Induced X-Ray Emission Spectrometry (Chemical Analysis Series, Vol. 133), S. A. E. Johansson, J. L. Campbell, and K. G. Malmqvist, ed., John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 237-311.

Cahill, T. A., Barnes, D., and Smeltzer, K. (2009). Deposition of Coarse Toxic Particles in Wilmington, CA. Final Report for the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Sacramento, CA.

Cahill, T. A., Barnes, D. E., Spada, N. J., Lawton, J. A., and Cahill, T. M. (2010).

Very Fine and Ultra-Fine Metals and Ischemic Heart Disease in the Califor­ nia Central Valley 1: 2003-2007. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 45:1124-1134.

Cahill, T. A., Eldred, R. A., Motallebi, N., and Malm, W.C. (1989). Indirect Measurement of Hydrocarbon Aerosols Across the United States by Non­ Sulfate Hydrogen-Remaining Gravimetric Mass Correlations. Aerosol Sci.

Tech., 10:421-429.

Cahill, T. A., and Flocchini, R. G. (1974). Regional Monitoring of Smog Aerosols, Annual Reports to the California Air Resources Board, Contract 2---006, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Health Services. (2010). California Department of Health Services: Center for Health Statistics Office of Health Informa- tion and Research (OHIR). Retrieved from http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/ OHIR/vssdata/Tables.htm
CORE. (September 1994). Cardiovascular Disease Outreach and Epidemiology Program. The Local Burden of Cardiovascular Disease; Death from Heart Disease and Stroke in California Cities. Report No. 1. Kao, C., Gazzinaga, J. M., Cowling, D. W., Cohen, R. D., Fox, P., Kaplan, G. A. California De­ partment of Health Services and the University of California, San Francisco, CA.

California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS). (2001).

California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study. Retrieved from http:/ /www.arb.ca. gov /airways
Devlin, R. (2003). What We Know and What We Think We Know About Health Effects of Fine Particles: Is It Enough? Annual Meeting. American Associ­ ation of Aerosol Research (AAAR), Charlotte, NC.

Dockery, D. W., Pope, C. A. III, Hu, X. P., Spengler, J. D., Ware, J. H., Fay, M. E., Ferris, B. G., and Speizer, F. E. (1993). An Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six US Cities. N. Engl. J. Med., 329:1725-1759.

Flocchini, R. G., Cahill, T. A., Shadoan, D. J., Lange, S. J., Eldred, R. A., Feeney, P. J., Wolfe, G. W., Simeroth, D. C., and Suder, J. K. (1976). Monitoring California's Aerosols by Size and Elemental Composition. Environ. Sci.

Technol., 10:76--82.

Hayes, T. P., Kinney, J. J. R., and Wheeler, N. J.M. (1984). California Surface Wind Climatology, State of California Air Resources Board, Aerometic Data Division, Sacramento, CA.

Hedley, A. J., Wong, C.-M., Thach, T. Q., MStat, S. M., Lam, T.-H., and Anderson, H. R. (2002). Cardiorespiratory and All-Cause Mortality After Restrictions on Sulfur Content of Fuel in Hong Kong: An Intervention Study.

Lancet, 360(9346):1646--1652.

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Elements (IMPROVE). (2010).

Retrieved from http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE/ Kao, C., Gazzinaga, J. M., Cowling, D. W., Cohen, R. D., Fox, P., and Kaplan, G. A. (1994). Caralio Vascular Disease Outreach and Epidemiology Pro­ gram. The Local Burden of Cardiovascular Disease; Death from Heart Dis­ ease and Stroke in California Cities. Report No. 1. California Department of Health Services and the University of California, San Francisco, CA.

Lippmann, M. (2009). Semi-Continuous Speciation Analyses for Ambient Air Particulate Matter: An Urgent Need for Health Effects Studies. J. Expo. Sci.

Epidemiol. Stud., 19:235-247.

Lippmann, M., Ito, K., Hwang, J. S., Maciejczyk, P., and Chen, L. C. (2006).

Cardiovascular Effects of Nickel in Ambient Air. Environ. Health Perspect. 1141(11):1662-1669.

Malm, W. C., Sisler, J. F., Huffman, D., Eldred, R. A., and Cahill, T. A. (1994).

Spatial and Seasonal Trends in Particle Concentration and Optical Extinction in the United States. J. Geophys. Res., 99(Dl):1347-1370.

Motallebi, N., Cahill, T. A., and Flocchini, R. G. (1990a). Influence of Particulate Size on Statistical Studies of Visibility at California Regions. Atmosfera, 3(2):111-126.

Motallebi, N., Flocchini, R. G., Myrup, L. 0., and Cahill, T. A. (1990b). A Prin­ cipal Component Analysis of Visibility and Air Pollution in Six California Cities. Atmosfer., 3(2):127-141.

Neter, J. W., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. (1996).

Applied Linear Statistical Models (4th ed.). Irwin, Chicago, IL, p. 353.

Peltier, R. E., Hsu, S.-I., Lall, R., and Lippmann, M. (2009). Residual Oil Combustion: A Major Source of Airborne Nickel in New York City. J.

Expo. Sci. Epidemiol., 19:603---612.

Peltier, R. E., and Lippmann, M. (2010). Residual Oil Combustion: 2. Distribu­ tion of Airborne Nickel and Vanadium Within New York City. J. Expo. Sci.

Epidemiol., 20:342-350.

Zhang, Z., Chau, P. Y., Lai, H. K., and Wong, C. M. (2009). A Review of the Effects of Particulate Matter-Associated Nickel and Vanadium Species on Cardiovascular and Respiratory Systems. Int. J. Environ. Health Res., 19(3):175-185.

Cahill -- 00000284

EXHIBIT 10
Prenatal Air Pollution and Newborns' Predisposition to
Accelerated Biological Aging
Dries S. Martens, MSc, Bianca Cox, PhD , and Bram G. Janssen, PhD Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium Diana B. P. Clemente, MSc,
Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium; Instituto de Salud Global, Centre for Research in En
vironmental Epidemiology, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Antonio Gasparrini, PhD,
Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, England; Department of Medical Statistics , LSHTM, London,
England
Charlotte Vanpoucke, MSc,
Belgian Interregional Environment Agency, Brussels, Belgium Wouter Lefebvre, PhD,
Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Mol, Belgium Harry A. Roels, PhD,
Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium; Louvain Centre for To
xicology and Applied Pharmacology, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium Michelle Plusquin, PhD, and
Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium Tim S. Nawrot, PhD
Corresponding Author: Tim S. Na wrot, PhD, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, Agoralaan Gebouw D, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium, ([email protected]).