Seal Beach City Council
February 23, 2026

Archaeological Monitoring at
Installation Restoration (IR) Site 73,
Naval Weapons Station
(NAVWPNSTA), Seal Beach,
California (CH2M Hill Prime Contract
No. N6871-96-d-2299)
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02072 Bissell,
Ronald M.

Archaeological Services at Naval
Weapons Station (NAVWPNSTA),
Seal Beach, California (CH2M Hill
Prime Contract No. N6871-96-d2299), Relative to Sampling at Installation Restoration (IR) Sites 12,
16, 25, 37, 38, 42, 44/45, Aoc 6,
Swmu 24, 56, 57, Osr, an
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02284 Mason,
Roger and
Cerreto,
Richard
Archaeological Resources Protection
Plan for Installation Restoration Sites
5, 8, 12, 16, 21, 40, 44, and 46 at
Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach
Orange County, Ca
1995 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02286 Bissell,
Ronald M.

Archaeological Monitoring at Repair
Site #21, Naval Weapons Station
(NAVWPNSTA) Seal Beach, Ca
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02604 Duke, Curt Cultural Resource Assessment at & T Wireless Services Facility No. 13001a
Orange County, California
2002 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02687 Miller, Jason
A.

Archaeological Monitoring of
Trenching for the Main Telephone
Cable Feed Vault on the Seal Beach
Naval Weapons Station, California
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02688 Baillie,
David
Replacement of a Segment of Clay
Sewer Pie, Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
2002 0 - 1 Mile
OR-02774 Shepard,
Richard S.

Phase I Cultural Resources
Assessment: Los Alamitos Pump
Station Project in Long Beach, Los
Angeles County, and Seal Beach,
Orange County, California
2003 Within Project
area
179
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 160
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-03172 Tang, Bai
"Tom" and
Casey
Tibbet
Historic Resources Evaluation Report
Seal Beach Bike Trail Project City of
Seal Beach, Orange County 12-ORA1-pm 31.11/32.72-kp 50.07/52.66 Ea Oc 3700
2004 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03173 Willey,
Lorraine M.,
and Jackson
Underwood
Archaeological Testing of a Portion of
Site CA-ORA-322/1118 Gardeners
Road and Bolsa Avenue Naval
Weapons Station Seal Beach,
California
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03379 Chatters,
James Carl
Final Archaeological Data Recovery
Report for a Portion of Prehistoric
Archaeological Site CA-ORA322/1118 to Mitigate Impacts of Soil Removal Remediation
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03391 York,
Andrew L.,
James H.

Cleland,
Lorraine
Willey, and
Charlane
Gross
Mitigation Plan for Significant
Cultural Resource Discoveries
Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Area
Seal Beach, California
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03562 Monica
Strauss
Negative Archaeological Monitoring
Report for the 400 Marina Drive
Development Project, City of Seal
Beach, CA
2009 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03714 Bonner,
Wayne H.

Cultural Resources Survey and
Historic Architectural Assessment
Results for Sprint
Telecommunications Facility
Candidate OG54XC414D (Browning),
1971 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, Orange
County, California
2004 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03715 Bonner,
Wayne H.

Cultural Resources Records Search
and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
Candidate LA 02899D (Fire Station),
120 1/2 West Walnut Street, Station
#5, Santa Ana, Orange County,
California
2008 0 - 1 Mile
180
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 161
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-03735 Bai "Tom"
Tang
Due-Diligence Historical
Archaeological Resources Review,
City of Seal Beach Sewer Capital
Improvement Projects, City of Seal
Beach, Orange County, California
2008 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03762 Ehringer,
Candace
Negative Archaeological Monitoring
Report for the Hellman Ranch Tank
Farm Replacement Project, City of
Seal Beach, California
2009 Within Project
area
OR-03821 Tang, Bai
and Michael
Hogan
Identification and Evaluation of
Historic Properties City of Seal Beach
Sewer Capital Improvement Projects
(Southern Portion/Downtown Area)
City of Seal Beach, Orange County,
California
2009 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03828 Cleland,
James,
Andrew
York, and
Lorraine
Willey
Piecing Together the Prehistory of
Landing Hill: A Place Remembered
2007 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03870 Mason,
Roger
Historic Property Survey Report for
the West Orange County Connection,
Phase II - I-405/I605 HOV Connector
Project, Orange County, California
2009 0 - 1 Mile
OR-03922 Bonner,
Wayne
Cultural Resources Records Search
and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile
USA Candidate LA33981-E (Faith
Christian Assembly), 13820 Seal
Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, Orange
County, California
2010 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04002 Underwood,
Jackson
Work Plan for Presence/Absence
Archaeological Testing of a Portion of
Site CA-ORA-322/1118 Gardeners
Road and Bolsa Avenue Naval
Weapons Station, Seal Beach,
California
2002 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04023 Underbrink,
Susan
Cultural Resources Records Search
and Survey Report for the Ocean
Place Project, Seal Beach, Orange
County, California
2005 0 - 1 Mile
181
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 162
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-04030 Whitaker,
Adrian R.

Evaluation of a Redeposited Site (CAORA-1711) for the Marine Corps Reserve Training Center, Project P063, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Orange County, California
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04031 Padon, Beth Subject: Phase I Archaeological Study Report for Alumni Center at the
University of California Irvine
Campus
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04034 Bucknam,
Bonnie M.

The Los Angeles Basin and Vicinity:

A Gazetteer and Compilation of
Archaeological Site Information
1974 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04035 Weinman,
Lois J., and
E. Gary
Stickel
(also LA2399) Los Angeles-Long
Beach Harbor Areas Cultural
Resource Survey
1978 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04047 Lehman,
Jane
Seal Beach Railroad Right of Way
Property, Seal Beach Blvd. - 17th
Street - 16th Street - Electric Ave.,
Seal Beach, CA
2007 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04089 Whittenberg,
Lee
Section 106 Compliance Information
City of Seal Beach Water Tank Fence
Replacement Project, Seal Beach
Naval Weapons Station
2001 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04105 Wlodarski,
Robert J.

Cultural Resources Records Search
and Archaeological Survey Results for
the proposed Clear Wireless, LLC,
Site CA-ORC5863A (OG03XC029C)
located at 211 8th Street, Seal Beach,
Orange County, California 90740
2010 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04143 Baillie,
David
Sprinkler System Replacement at CAORA-322/1118, Reference #5758 Ser.

N45W/0153
2004 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04172 Chasteen,
Carrie
Historic Property Survey Report San
Diego Freeway (I-405) Improvement
Project SR-73 to I-605, Orange and
Los Angeles Counties
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04189 Gundrum,
Darrell
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach
Proposal to Improve Security and
Access Control Measures at Two
Installation Gates: Gate 1 and Gate 9
2005 0 - 1 Mile
182
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 163
Report
Number
Author(s) Title Year Distance from
the Southern
LCW Project
area
OR-04223 Flynn, Chris Notification of Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions for
the Bridge Deck Maintenance and
Sealing at 30 Locations Throughout
Orange County, California
2011 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04307 Baille,
David
Reevaluation of the National Register
Eligibility Status of Naval Weapons
Station Seal Beach, Orange County
and Naval Weapons Station Seal
Beach, Detachment Fallbrook, San
Diego County
2003 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04346 Bissell,
Ronald
Discovery Plan, Archaeological
Services at Naval Weapons Station
(NAVWPNSTA), Seal Beach,
California for the Upgrade of Main
Telephone Cable Feed Vault
2000 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04505 Brunzell,
David
Cultural Resources Assessment of the
Seal BH 1 Project, Seal Beach,
Orange County, California (BCR
Consulting Project No. TRF1427)
2015 0 - 1 Mile
OR-04553 Bonner,
Wayne H.

Phase I Survey Marina Drive, Seal
Beach
1999 0 - 1 Mile
183
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 164
APPENDIX F. PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES
184
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 165
Table F – 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within a 3-mile radius of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
000102
CA-LAN102Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1966 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000231
CA-LAN231Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000232
CA-LAN232Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000233
CA-LAN233Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000234
CA-LAN234Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Puvungna Village Site,
Surface Shell, Chipping
Waste
1960 NR: 1D 2 - 3
miles
19-
000235
CA-LAN235Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Puvungna Village Site,
Surface Shell, Chipping
Waste
1960 NR: 1D 2 - 3
miles
19-
000236
CA-LAN236Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Dark Soil 1961 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000271
CA-LAN271Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1959 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000272
CA-LAN272Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Partial Burial 1961 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
19-
000273
CA-LAN273Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
185
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 166
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
000274
CA-LAN274Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000275
CA-LAN275Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1961 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000306
CA-LAN306Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Gabrielino Village Site 1951,
1964,
1972,
1973,
1997
1D 1 - 2
miles
19-
000698
CA-LAN698Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Surface Shell, Chipping
Waste
1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000699
CA-LAN699Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Chipping Waste 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000700
CA-LAN700Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000701
CA-LAN701Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000702
CA-LAN702Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
000703
CA-LAN703Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
000705
CA-LAN705Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1974 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
001000
CA-LAN1000Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979;
1994
Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
001001
CA-LAN1001Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
001002
CA-LAN1002Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
186
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 167
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
001003
CA-LAN1003Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1979,
1994
Recommended
- not a
resource
2 - 3
miles
19-
001004
CA-LAN1004Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979,
1994
Recommended
- not a
resource
2 - 3
miles
19-
001005
CA-LAN1005Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979,
1994
Recommended
- not a
resource
2 - 3
miles
19-
001006
CA-LAN1006Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1979 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
001007
CA-LAN1007Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1979 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
001821
CA-LAN001821Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Site 1990 Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
19-
002616
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Seasonally-Utilized
Food
Processing/Consumption
Station
1997 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
002629
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977,
1994
Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
002630
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Seasonally-Utilized
Food
Processing/Consumption
Station
1994 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
003040
Historic
Archaeological
Site
Oil Extraction Facility
with Tank Farms
2000 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
187
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 168
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
004780
CA-LAN4780HHistoric
Archaeological
Site
Surficial Refuse Scatter 2016 Unevaluated 0.5 - 1
mile
19-
004781
Historic
Archaeological
Site
LSA-LYC1501-S-2 2017 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
19-
004797
CA-LAN4797HHistoric
Archaeological
Site
Navy Hospital Refuse
Site
2015 Recommended
not eligible
2 - 3
miles
19-
004805
CA-LAN4805HMultiComponent
Archaeological
Site
Shell Deposit and
Historic Glazed
Ceramics
2015 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120038
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120039
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120040
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120041
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120042
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120043
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120044
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
188
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 169
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
120045
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
120046
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120047
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
120048
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
120049
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
120050
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120052
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
19-
120053
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1977 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
19-
178684
Historic
Archaeological
Site
Rancho Los Alamitos 1981 nominated for
NRHP
1 - 2
miles
19-
186115
Historic Built
Environment
Long Beach Marine
Stadium
1993,
1994,
2009
NR: 5S1 0 - 0.25
mile
189
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 170
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
186681
Historic Built
Environment
200 Nieto Ave. 2002 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
19-
186880
MultiComponent
Archaeological
Site
Alamitos Generating
Station Fuel Oil Tank
Farm
2004 Unevaluated
for NRHP;
Recommended
not eligible for
CRHR

0.5 - 1
mile
19-
186926
Historic Built
Environment
Los Alamitos Pump
Station
2003 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
19-
187654
Historic Built
Environment
HRI #152957, 212
Quincy Ave.
2003 Recommend
eligible of
NRHP,
Criterion B
2 - 3
miles
19-
187656
Historic Built
Environment
HRI #150929, 5901 East
7th St.

Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
19-
187657
Historic Built
Environment
Bixby Ranch Field
Office, 6433
Westminster Ave.
1996,
2016
Recommended
eligible for
NRHP under
Criterion
A/CRHR
under
Criterion 1

0.5 - 1
mile
19-
188776
Historic Built
Environment
3933 E. Broadway 2002,
2006,
2010
Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
190
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 171
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
189429
Historic Built
Environment
5320 E 2nd St, Lorbeer
Building
2009 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
19-
189860
Historic Built
Environment
SCE Transmission
Tower M-1 T-2, APN
#7238-030-802
2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189879
Historic Built
Environment
1627 Stevely Ave. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189880
Historic Built
Environment
6979 E. El Cedral St. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189881
Historic Built
Environment
6979 E. El Cedral Street 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189882
Historic Built
Environment
2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189883
Historic Built
Environment
1921 N. Hidden Lane 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189884
Historic Built
Environment
1967 N. Hidden Lane 2011 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
191
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 172
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
189885
Historic Built
Environment
2015 N. Hidden Lane 2011 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189886
Historic Built
Environment
7140 E. Atherton Street 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189887
Historic Built
Environment
7100 E. Atherton Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189888
Historic Built
Environment
1819 Lees Avenue 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189889
Historic Built
Environment
1921 Lees Avenue 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189925
Historic Built
Environment
1820 N. Studebaker Rd. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189926
Historic Built
Environment
2017 Ostrom Ave. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
189927
Historic Built
Environment
2129 Vuelta Grande
Ave.
2010 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
192
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 173
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
19-
189991
Historic Built
Environment
HRI #181096 Hafley
House, 5561 E La
Pasada St., Long Beach
2011 NR: 1S; 3S 2 - 3
miles
19-
190055
Historic Built
Environment
Anthony's Shopping
Plaza, APN: 7231-013-
028, 1800-1818 Palo
Verde Ave, Long Beach
2012 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
19-
190670
Historic Built
Environment
Wineke Building, 3233
E Broadway, L.B.,
APN:7264-004-022
2009 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
000143
CA-ORA000143MultiComponent
Archaeological
Site
Landing Hill #10 1964,
1965,
1969,
1997
Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
000256
CA-ORA000256Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation debris 1969,
1996
Unevaluated Within
Project
area
30-
000257
CA-ORA000257Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic scatter 1969,
1996
Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
000258
CA-ORA000258Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic Scatter,
Hearths/pits, Habitation
Debris
1969,
1996
Unevaluated Within
Project
area
30-
000259
CA-ORA000259Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic Scatter,
Habitation Debris
1969,
1996
Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
193
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 174
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
000260
CA-ORA000260Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic Scatter,
Habitation Debris
1969,
1996
Unevaluated Within
Project
area
30-
000261
CA-ORA000261Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden,
Groundstone
1969 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
000262
CA-ORA000262Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic Scatter,
Habitation Debris
1969,
1996
Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
000263
CA-ORA000263Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic Scatter,
Habitation Debris
1969,
1996
Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
000264
CA-ORA000264Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic Scatter, Burials,
Habitation Debris
1969 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
000298
CA-ORA298Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden 1971 NR: 2S2 1 - 2
miles
30-
000322
CA-ORA000322/HMultiComponent
Archaeological
Site
Foundations/structure
pads,
Privies/dumps/trash
scatter, Wells/cisterns,
Lithic Scatter, Ceramic
Scatter, Habitation
Debris
1971,
1988,
1992,
1996,
2000
Nominated for
NRHP under
Criterion D
0 - 0.25
mile
30-
000850
CA-ORA000850Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter pre-1976;
1996
Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
000851
CA-ORA000851Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris pre-1976;
1996
Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
194
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 175
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
000852
CA-ORA000852Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
001352
CA-ORA1352Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell 1972 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
30-
001455
CA-ORA001455Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris, Shell
Midden
1996,
1997
Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001463
CA-ORA1463Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Midden, Chipping
Waste
1985 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
30-
001473
CA-ORA001473Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris 1996 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
001502
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Artifact Scatter 1999;
2010
Recommended
eligible for
NRHP under
Criterion D
1 - 2
miles
30-
001503
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 1999;
2011
Recommended
eligible for
NRHP under
Criterion D
2 - 3
miles
30-
001504
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 1999 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
001505
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 1999 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
001539
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001540
CA-ORA001540Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
195
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 176
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
001541
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001542
CA-ORA001542/HMultiComponent
Archaeological
Site
Privies/dumps/trash
scatter, Habitation
Debris
2000 Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001543
Historic Built
Environment
30-001543-1 2000 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
001544
ORA001544Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Lithic Scatter,
Habitation Debris
2000 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
001545
ORA001545Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
001546
ORA001546Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris 2000 Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001568
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
001570
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
001571
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
001572
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell Scatter 2000 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
001644
ORA001644Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris 2006 Unevaluated 0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001711
ORA001711Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Habitation Debris 2011 evaluated to
not be a
resource

0.25 -

0.5 mile
196
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 177
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
001714
CA-ORA1714Prehistoric
Archaeological
Site
Shell, Artifact Scatter 2011;
2015
Recommended
eligible for
NRHP under
Criterion D
2 - 3
miles
30-
001746
CA-ORA1746HMultiComponent
Archaeological
Site
Historic Refuse, Shell
Scatter
2014 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
001782
Historic
Archaeological
Site
Concrete and Wood
Piling Bulkhead
2018 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR

0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001783
Historic
Archaeological
Site
Seal Beach Electric
Generating Station
2018 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR

0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001784
Historic
Archaeological
Site
Unnamed Historic Road
Remnants
2018 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR

0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
001785
Historic
Archaeological
Site
Segment of Historic
Coast Boulevard
Alignment
2018 Recommended
not eligible for

NRHP/CRHR

0.25 -

0.5 mile
30-
100142
Historic
Archaeological
Isolate
Glass Bottle Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
100209
Prehistoric
Archaeological
Isolate
Flake 2014 Unevaluated 2 - 3
miles
30-
156069
Historic Built
Environment
Old Seal Beach City
Hall, 201 8th St.
2011 NR: 1S 0.25 –

0.5 mile
197
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 178
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
162271
Historic Built
Environment
HRI #090012, Anaheim
Landing
2014;
1980;
1935
CPHI no. 219 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
162293
Historic Built
Environment
HRI #090904, Seal
Beach Red Car, Main St.
and Electric Ave.
1985 NR: 7P 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176491
Historic Built
Environment
Underground utilities,
Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR
0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176492
Historic Built
Environment
Building #16 /
Recreation Building, QC
1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176493
Historic Built
Environment
Building #22 /
Administration Office
Bldg., QC
1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176494
Historic Built
Environment
Building #24 / Filling
Sta-Storage Bldg., QC
ca. 1992 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176495
Historic Built
Environment
Building #26 / EM
Barracks Bldg.
ca. 1992 Unknown 0 - 0.25
mile
198
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 179
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176496
Historic Built
Environment
Bldg. #38, 70, 74, 103, 1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176497
Historic Built
Environment
Building #90 /
Compressed air plant
Bldg.
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176498
Historic Built
Environment
Building #92 / Pump
House No. 2
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176499
Historic Built
Environment
Building #93 /
Flammables Storehouse
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176500
Historic Built
Environment
Building #98 / Steamout shed building1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176501
Historic Built
Environment
Building #99 / Heating
Plant Building
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176502
Historic Built
Environment
Building #100/
Compressed Air Bldg.
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
199
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 180
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176503
Historic Built
Environment
Building #101 / Vacuum
Dust Removal Bldg.
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176504
Historic Built
Environment
Building #102 / Ammo
Rework Facility
1992 Unevaluated 1 - 2
miles
30-
176505
Historic Built
Environment
Water tank No. 2 1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176506
Historic Built
Environment
Pass and ID Office 1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR
0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176507
Historic Built
Environment
Building #201 / General
Storehouse
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR
0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176508
Historic Built
Environment
Building #202, Sentry
Shelter, Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach
1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR
0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176509
Historic Built
Environment
Building #203 / Fire
Station
1999 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
200
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 181
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176510
Historic Built
Environment
Building #204 /
Administration Building
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176511
Historic Built
Environment
Building #205 /
Flagpole
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176512
Historic Built
Environment
Building #206 /
Administration Office
Bldg.
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176513
Historic Built
Environment
Building #207 / Water
Storage Tank, QC
1992 NR: 6Y 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176514
Historic Built
Environment
Building #208 / PW Pest
Cont/Garden Sup Bldg.
ca. 1992 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR

0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176515
Historic Built
Environment
Building #210 1992,
2007
Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR
0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176515
Historic Built
Environment
Building #213 1992,
2007
Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR

0.25 –

0.5 mile
201
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 182
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176515
Historic Built
Environment
Building #215 1992,
2007
Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
for CRHR

0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176516
Historic Built
Environment
Building #211, 214, 216,
Quarters A, B, C
1992,
2007
NR: 6Y 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
176517
Historic Built
Environment
Building #226 / Printing
Shop
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176518
Historic Built
Environment
Building #227 / Substationca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176519
Historic Built
Environment
Building #229 / QED
Comptroller Office
Building, QC
ca. 1992 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176520
Historic Built
Environment
Building #230 / PW
Office, QC
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176521
Historic Built
Environment
Building #231 / PW
Metal Storage Building
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176522
Historic Built
Environment
Building #232 /PW Oil
Storage Building
ca. 1992 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
202
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 183
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176523
Historic Built
Environment
Building #233 / PW
Vehicle Parking Shed
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176524
Historic Built
Environment
Building #234 / PW
Carpenters Shop Annex
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176525
Historic Built
Environment
Building #235 ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176526
Historic Built
Environment
Building #237 / Boiler
Housing Bldg.
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176527
Historic Built
Environment
Building #238 /
Flammables Storehouse
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176528
Historic Built
Environment
Building #239 / General
Warehouse Building
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176529
Historic Built
Environment
Building #240 / Railroad
Equip Maintenance
Shop
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176530
Historic Built
Environment
Building #241 /
Container Repair Bldg.
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
203
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 184
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176531
Historic Built
Environment
Building #242 / Gen
Storage Shed Bldg., QC
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176532
Historic Built
Environment
Building #243 /
Incinerator Bldg., QC
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176533
Historic Built
Environment
Building #244 / Quonset
Hut Storehouse
ca. 1992 NR: 6Y 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176544
Historic Built
Environment
Anderson Street Water
Tower, 101 Anderson
Street
1976 Nominated for
NRHP
1 - 2
miles
30-
176752
Historic Built
Environment
Parasol Restaurant,
12241 Seal Beach Blvd.
2004 NR: 3CS 2 - 3
miles
30-
176778
Historic Built
Environment
Taco Surf Restaurant
and Cantina, 16281
Pacific Coast Highway
2004 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
204
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 185
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176803
Historic Built
Environment
NASA Saturn S-II
Historic District, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176840
Historic Built
Environment
Administrative Area,
Naval Weapons Station,
800 Seal Beach
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176841
Historic Built
Environment
Baseball Diamond,
MWR Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176841
Historic Built
Environment
Softball Diamond,
MWR Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176841
Historic Built
Environment
Tennis Facility, MWR
Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176841
Historic Built
Environment
Patio, MWR Support
Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176841
Historic Built
Environment
Restroom, MWR
Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176841
Historic Built
Environment
Lifeguard Stand, MWR
Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
205
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 186
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176842
Historic Built
Environment
BEQ Complex, 800 Seal
Beach Blvd.
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176843
Historic Built
Environment
Bunker 33, 800 Seal
Beach Blvd.
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176844
Historic Built
Environment
Building 59, Guided
Missile Facilities
ca. 1998 NR: 6Y 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176844
Historic Built
Environment
Building 137, Guided
Missile Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176844
Historic Built
Environment
Building 61, Guided
Missile Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176845
Historic Built
Environment
Building 89, Quality
Evaluation Labs &
Support Facilities
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176845
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 432-437,
Quality Evaluation Labs
& Support Facilities
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176846
Historic Built
Environment
Bldg. 78, Missile
Facilities by Lapota,
Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
206
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 187
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176846
Historic Built
Environment
Bldg. 915, Missile
Facilities by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not
eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176846
Historic Built
Environment
Bldg. 923 | Missile
Facilities by Lapota,
Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176846
Historic Built
Environment
Bldg. 906 (orig.
demolished), Missile
Facilities by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176847
Historic Built
Environment
Bldg. 264, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176847
Historic Built
Environment
Building 85, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176847
Historic Built
Environment
Building 248, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
207
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 188
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176847
Historic Built
Environment
Building 86
(demolished), Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176847
Historic Built
Environment
Building 414, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176847
Historic Built
Environment
Building 921
(demolished), Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176848
Historic Built
Environment
Building 88, AntiSubmarine Warfare
Complex
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176848
Historic Built
Environment
Building 87, AntiSubmarine Warfare
Complex
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176849
Historic Built
Environment
Old Ordnance Disposal
Area, Naval Weapons
Station, Seal Beach
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
208
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 189
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176850
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 426-431,
Small Arched Vault
Magazines
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176850
Historic Built
Environment
Building 104, Small
Arched Vault Magazines
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176850
Historic Built
Environment
Building 318, Small
Arched Vault Magazines
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176850
Historic Built
Environment
Building 599, Small
Arched Vault Magazines
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176850
Historic Built
Environment
Building 456, Small
Arched Vault Magazines
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176851
Historic Built
Environment
Building 849, Sentry
Shelters
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176851
Historic Built
Environment
Building 848, Sentry
Shelters
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
209
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 190
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176851
Historic Built
Environment
Building 107, Sentry
Shelters
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176852
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 224, 246, 247,
249, 251, 252, 253,
Prefabricated Buildings
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176852
Historic Built
Environment
Prefabricated Buildings,
Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176853
Historic Built
Environment
Building 236, Public
Works Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176853
Historic Built
Environment
Building 250, Public
Works Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176853
Historic Built
Environment
Building 254, Public
Works Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176853
Historic Built
Environment
Building 260, Public
Works Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
210
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 191
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176853
Historic Built
Environment
Building 228, Public
Works Support Facilities
ca. 1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176855
Historic Built
Environment
Building 259, Converted
Lighters
1998 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
176855
Historic Built
Environment
Building 306, Converted
Lighters
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176855
Historic Built
Environment
Building 303, Converted
Lighters
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176855
Historic Built
Environment
Building 413
(demolished), Location
based on UTM coords.
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 317, Wharf
Area
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 321, Wharf
Area
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 311, Wharf
Area
1998 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 349, Wharf
Area
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
211
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 192
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 344, mooring,
Mapped to aerial
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 345, mooring,
Mapped to aerial
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 352, mooring,
Mapped to aerial
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176856
Historic Built
Environment
Building 348, Wharf
Area
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176857
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 354, 356, 357,
358, 359, 360,
Shipboard Electronic
Systems Evaluation
Facility
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176858
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 401, 422, 423,
424, and Various, Small
Arms Range
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
212
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 193
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176859
Historic Built
Environment
Building 420, LORAC
Support Structure
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176860
Historic Built
Environment
Building 502, Support
Facilities by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176860
Historic Built
Environment
Building 922, Support
Facilities by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176860
Historic Built
Environment
Building 925, Support
Facilities by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176860
Historic Built
Environment
Building 920, Support
Facilities by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176860
Historic Built
Environment
Building 909, Support
Facilities by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
213
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 194
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176861
Historic Built
Environment
3-Vault Ammunition
Magazines by Brooks
and Miller, 15 buildings
(see record)
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176862
Historic Built
Environment
Building 813, Box Vault
Magazines by Brooks
and Miller
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176862
Historic Built
Environment
Building 811, Box Vault
Magazines by Brooks
and Miller
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176862
Historic Built
Environment
Building 859, Box Vault
Magazines by Brooks
and Miller
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176863
Historic Built
Environment
Building 850, 800 Area
Non-Magazine
Structures
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176863
Historic Built
Environment
Building 868, 800 Area
Non-Magazine
Structures
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
214
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 195
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176863
Historic Built
Environment
Building 877, 800 Area
Non-Magazine
Structures
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176863
Historic Built
Environment
Building 866, Helicopter
Landing Pad, 800 Area
Non-Magazine
Structures
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176863
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 878 & 879,
800 Area Non-Magazine
Structures
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176863
Historic Built
Environment
Building 867, 800 Area
Non-Magazine
Structures
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176864
Historic Built
Environment
Building 852, Box Vault
Magazine by Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176865
Historic Built
Environment
Building 858, Single
Arch Magazines by Ivor
Lyons
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176865
Historic Built
Environment
Building 856, Single
Arch Magazines by Ivor
Lyons
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
215
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 196
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
176865
Historic Built
Environment
Building 854, Single
Arch Magazines by Ivor
Lyons
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176866
Historic Built
Environment
Building 863, MultiArch magazines by
Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176866
Historic Built
Environment
Building 865, MultiArch Magazines by
Lapota
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
176867
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 883 & 884,
Single Arch Magazines
by Lapota
ca. 1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
176868
Historic Built
Environment
Buildings 910 & 911, 3-
Vault Missile Magazines
1998 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
177074
Historic Built
Environment
Los Alamitos Channel 2011 Unknown 0.5 - 1
mile
30-
177289
Historic Built
Environment
1860 Saint John Road 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2
miles
30-
177290
Historic Built
Environment
13040 Del Monte Dr. 2011 NR: 3CD 1 - 2
miles
216
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 197
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177291
Historic Built
Environment
1515 Northwood Road 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2
miles
30-
177292
Historic Built
Environment
13100 Oak Hills Dr. 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2
miles
30-
177293
Historic Built
Environment
13040 Oak Hills Dr. 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2
miles
30-
177294
Historic Built
Environment
1040 Foxburg Road 2010 NR: 3CD 1 - 2
miles
30-
177295
Historic Built
Environment
136 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177296
Historic Built
Environment
156 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177297
Historic Built
Environment
196 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177298
Historic Built
Environment
200 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
217
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 198
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177299
Historic Built
Environment
212 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177300
Historic Built
Environment
216 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177301
Historic Built
Environment
213 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177302
Historic Built
Environment
217 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177303
Historic Built
Environment
214 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177304
Historic Built
Environment
218 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177305
Historic Built
Environment
215 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
218
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 199
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177306
Historic Built
Environment
219 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177307
Historic Built
Environment
216 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177308
Historic Built
Environment
220 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177309
Historic Built
Environment
217 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177310
Historic Built
Environment
221 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177311
Historic Built
Environment
218 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177312
Historic Built
Environment
222 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
219
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 200
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177313
Historic Built
Environment
219 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177314
Historic Built
Environment
223 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177315
Historic Built
Environment
220 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177316
Historic Built
Environment
224 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177317
Historic Built
Environment
221 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177318
Historic Built
Environment
225 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177319
Historic Built
Environment
222 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
220
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 201
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177320
Historic Built
Environment
226 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177321
Historic Built
Environment
223 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177322
Historic Built
Environment
227 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177323
Historic Built
Environment
224 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177324
Historic Built
Environment
228 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177325
Historic Built
Environment
225 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177326
Historic Built
Environment
229 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
221
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 202
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177327
Historic Built
Environment
226 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177328
Historic Built
Environment
230 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177329
Historic Built
Environment
227 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177330
Historic Built
Environment
231 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177331
Historic Built
Environment
228 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177332
Historic Built
Environment
232 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177333
Historic Built
Environment
229 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
222
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 203
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177334
Historic Built
Environment
233 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177335
Historic Built
Environment
230 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177336
Historic Built
Environment
234 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177337
Historic Built
Environment
231 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177338
Historic Built
Environment
235 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177339
Historic Built
Environment
232 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177340
Historic Built
Environment
236 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
223
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 204
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177341
Historic Built
Environment
233 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177342
Historic Built
Environment
237 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177343
Historic Built
Environment
234 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177344
Historic Built
Environment
238 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177345
Historic Built
Environment
235 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177346
Historic Built
Environment
239 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177347
Historic Built
Environment
236 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
224
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 205
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177348
Historic Built
Environment
240 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177349
Historic Built
Environment
237 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177350
Historic Built
Environment
241 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177351
Historic Built
Environment
238 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177352
Historic Built
Environment
242 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177353
Historic Built
Environment
239 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177354
Historic Built
Environment
243 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
225
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 206
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177355
Historic Built
Environment
240 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177356
Historic Built
Environment
244 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177357
Historic Built
Environment
241 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177358
Historic Built
Environment
245 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177359
Historic Built
Environment
242 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177360
Historic Built
Environment
246 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177361
Historic Built
Environment
243 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
226
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 207
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177362
Historic Built
Environment
247 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177363
Historic Built
Environment
244 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177364
Historic Built
Environment
248 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177365
Historic Built
Environment
245 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177366
Historic Built
Environment
249 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177367
Historic Built
Environment
246 College Park Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
30-
177368
Historic Built
Environment
250 College Park Drive 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
1 - 2
miles
227
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 208
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
177393
Historic Built
Environment
11491 Martha Ann Dr. 2010 Recommended
not eligible for
NRHP;
Unevaluated
CRHR
2 - 3
miles
30-
177445
Historic Built
Environment
Main Gate 1 Entrance
Wall, Naval Weapons
Station Seal Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
179841
Historic Built
Environment
Quarters H, J-M |
Building 212, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0 - 0.25
mile
30-
179841
Historic Built
Environment
Quarters H, J-M |
Building 217, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179841
Historic Built
Environment
Quarters H, J-M |
Building 218, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
228
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 209
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
179842
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Sewer Lift Station,
Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179843
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Maintenance Building,
Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179844
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Mailbox Covers, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179845
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Building Type VI, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
229
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 210
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
179846
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Building Type V, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179847
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Building Type IV, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179848
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Building Type III, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179849
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Building Type II, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
30-
179850
Historic Built
Environment
Sea Breeze Village,
Building Type I, Naval
Weapons Station, Seal
Beach
ca. 1999 Unknown 0.25 –

0.5 mile
230
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 211
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource
Type
Resource Description Year
Recorded

NRHP/CRHR
Status Code
Distance
from
Project
area
30-
179859
Historic Built
Environment
Naval Weapons Station,
Seal Beach, 800 Seal
Beach Blvd.
ca. 1999 Nominated for
NRHP under
Criteria A, C,
D
0 - 0.25
mile
231
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 212
APPENDIX G. HISTORIC TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
232
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 213
Figure G - 1. 1896 USGS Downey topographic map (1:62,500) co~tone
J'UEONTOLOOY - ... ltCH ... EOL03Y - NISf01n'
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II I I Project Arca
USGS 15' Quads:

Downey 1896
Las Bolsas 1896
0 0 0.5

I I II I
I :50,000

0.5 _,,..

I I
1 Miles
I
I Kilometers
I
(
N
A
I in = 4, 167 ft
233
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 214
Figure G - 2. 1935 USGS Los Alamitos topographic map (1:31,680) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Sea l Beach
Orange Co unty, CA
I 464-
61 I I I J Project Arca
USGS 7.5' Quads:

Seal Beach 1935
Los Alamitos 1935
;/
/
0 0.25 0.5 Miles

I I I I I N
0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers !
L.....J.,___._, ............. 1 ........ , ............. ,_.1 1' 1 :20,000 I in = 1,667ft
234
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 215
Figure G - 3. 1942 USGS Downey topographic map (1:31,680) Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Sea l Beach
Orange Co unty, CA
I I I J Project Arca
USGS 15' Quads:

Downey 1942
Las Bolsas 1943
0 0.25 0.5 Miles

I I I I I N
0 0.25 0.5 Kilometers !
L.....L.1 ..... 1__._1 ...... l_._~1~1 1'
1 :20,000 I in = 1,667 ft
235
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 216
APPENDIX H. SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH
236
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 217
Cultural and Environmental Department
1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Phone: (916) 373-3710
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nahc.ca.gov
Twitter: @CA_NAHC
March 21, 2019
Candace Ehringer
ESA
VIA Email to: [email protected]
RE: Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program Environmental Impact Report Project, Los Angeles and Orange Counties
Dear Ms. Ehringer:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the tribes on the attached list for more information. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
st even [email protected]. gov.

Sincerely,
J1ki_ k
Steven Quinn
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
237
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 218
APPENDIX I. SAMPLE TAG INVITATION
238
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 219
Governing
Board
Samuel Schuchat,
Chair
Coastal Conse1vancy
Suzie Price,
Vice-Chair
City of Long Beach
J oe r<alrnick,
Board Membe r
City of Seal Beach
Robe rto Uranga,
Board Membe r
Rivers and
Mountains
Conservancy
Mark Stanley
Executive Officer
Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority
April 27, 2021
Cindi Alvitre
Ti'at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu
3094 Mace Avenue Apt B
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Re: Invitation to Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group Dear Cindi Alvitre,
The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA) hopes this letter find your families healthy during this trying time. The LCWA invites the Ti'at Society/Traditional Council of Pimu to join the Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group (TAG). I am reaching out to you because you consulted with the LCWA through AB52 for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program EIR (PEIR), certified on January 7, 2021. The LCWA acknowledges the importance of the wetlands to your tribe and we would like to continue to consult with you regarding LCWA's habitat restoration plans for a portion of the Los Cerritos Wetlands.

As you know, the LCWA is a local public agency established in 2006 with two state conservancies, the State Coastal Conservancy and San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, and the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach. The LCWA was established to acquire, manage, and restore the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Since 2006, LCWA has acquired 170 acres of the wetlands, established community restoration programs, and have been actively planning restoration of the entire 500-acre Los Cerritos Wetlands Complex (see attached Project Location Map).

The LCWA has received funding to move forward on project level designs on 105-acres of wetlands in Seal Beach, near Heron Point, called the South Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project (South LCW Project). We are convening the TAG in order to collaborate first with all tribes that consulted with LCWA through the AB52 process, and potentially other Tribes in the future, in order to involve tribal perspectives early on and throughout planning development, and to incorporate traditional ecological knowledge into restoration designs.

As part of the South LCW Project, the LCWA looks to accomplish the following:

Conduct focused biological, geotechnical, and archeological surveys Complete 65% restoration designs and project level CEQA Complete a Traditional Cultural Landscape Study of the Los Cerritos Wetlands
Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority · El En canto · JOO N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road · Azusa. CA 91702 • Ofltce-626.815. 10 I 9 • Fax-626.815. 1269 •
239
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 220
RE: Invitation to Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group April 27, 2021

In the PEIR, the LCWA agreed with the consulting Tribes that the Los Cerritos Wetlands is part of a tribal traditional cultural landscape (TCL) and could be significantly impacted by projects conducted within the wetlands.

Because the TCL was not formally documented, the LCWA has hired Cogstone Resource Management to conduct a TCL study. This will include:

A records search for a 5 mile buffer around the entire Los Cerritos Wetlands to put the wetlands into a larger regional context.

Conducting ethnographic and historic research to document past use of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, and wetlands in general, by the Tongva and Acjachemen. This would include documenting the collection of salt from the wetlands and the connection of the Cerritos wetlands to the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna.

Collecting oral histories from Tribal community members as recommended by the Tribal representatives and digitally record their explanations of current and past usage of the wetlands. At the end of the project, digital and hard copies of the finalized oral history will be provided to each participant and Tribe. Participants will be compensated for their time.

Currently we have government and private grant funding to compensate each Tribe's participation on TAG. Please see the LCW Tribal Advisory Group framework document attached which includes a more detailed description of this group. It is a draft, so we welcome any feedback you have.

Since there are multiple concurrent planning efforts taking place within the Los Cerritos Wetlands, we want to take this opportunity to clarify the differences between the LCWA's South LCW planning effort and the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project, a parallel planning process taking place within the North Area of the wetlands . While the LCWA's restoration plan (i.e. PEIR) does encompass the boundaries of much of the Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project, that project is led by Beach Oil Mineral Partners (BOMP) and not LCWA. The LCWA is a co-applicant of the project's Coastal Development Permit because the 5-acre property owned by LCWA is involved in the land swap. LCWA has been involved in the planning process in an advisory role to ensure the developed plans for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Oil Consolidation and Restoration Project are in line with LCWA's habitat restoration goals. While the LCWA maintains an active partnership with BOMP for the improvement of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, we do not oversee or advise on their day to day operations or tribal consultation and monitoring efforts.

The formation of the TAG is something the LCWA looks forward to, and we hope that you will join us! We want to schedule the initial intertribal TAG meeting on May 25, 2021 from 10am-12pm. The meeting will be held remotely.

Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority · El Encanto · 100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road· Azusa, CA 91702 ♦ Office-626.815.10 19 ♦ Fax-626.815.1269 ♦
240
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 221
RE: Invitation to Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group April 27, 2021

Please contact Sally Gee, Project Manager, (1.) if your tribe is interested in participating in the TAG, (2.) if you can attend the initial TAG meeting on the date and time mentioned above, and (3.) provide us with the name and contact information of your tribal representative(s). If your tribe is no longer interested in participating, please let us know that as well. Ms. Gee is also available to answer any questions you may have. We look forward to working with you.

Sally Gee, LCWA Project Manager
100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Rd. Azusa, CA 91702
Office: 626-815-1019 x 104
[email protected]. gov
Sincerely,
Mark Stanley
Executive Officer
Attachments:

LCW Tribal Advisory Group_Draft Framework 2021.04
Project Location Map
Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority · El Encanto · 100 N. Old San Gabriel Canyon Road· Azusa, CA 91702 ♦ Office-626.815.10 19 ♦ Fax-626.815.1269 ♦
241
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 222
Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Advisory Group
Draft Framework
Lead: Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority (LCWA)
representatives from the State Coastal Conservancy and the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy
Participants:

Tribes (traditional knowledge input, design input, and tribal cultural experts) LCWA Consultants (present and solicit feedback on designs/ stewardship) Goal of Tribal Advisory Group from LCWA perspective:

Establish a long-term relationship between tribal entities and the LCWA Incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and tribal perspectives into restoration designs and a Traditional Cultural Landscape Study for the LCW
Keep tribal community updated on progress of projects
Provide enhanced access to the LCW to tribal community
Suggested meeting schedule: 2-4 meetings annually depending on project milestones and need through the end of 2022, 2-hour meetings
Topics of discussion:

Tribal Goals and Objectives of restoration in the LCW complex Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project
o Restoration design input
Biological resources
Cultural resources
Landscape design
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
o Public access design input
Signage/ educational materials (future phases)
o Private tribal dedication area
o Cultural interpretation of technical studies
o Native American monitoring (data collection/ construction phase) o Traditional Cultural Landscape Study
Public programming/ stewardship activities (could happen now, no fundi ng) Initial meeting (May 2021):

Discuss role, purpose, and expectations of the tribal advisory group and compensation Establish membership and how to add members (LCWA expectation: start with 6 tribes who consulted on the AB52 process, allow other tribes to ask to join) Agreement on topics of discussion
Update status of LCWA's restoration planning
Funding: Each Tribe will receive a stipend to compensate representatives for meeting participation and document reviews. A Tribe may appoint multiple representatives to the project, but the stipend amount will not increase with additional members.
242
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 223
Exhibit A
Lakewood
Los Alamitos
SOURCE: ESRI
Huntington
Beach
D Program Boundary
Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program EIR
Regional Location
243
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 224
SOURCE: Mapbox, LC'NA Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan Program El R Figure 2-4
South Area
244
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 225
APPENDIX J. JULY 23, 2021 SITE VISIT SIGN IN SHEET
245
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 226
co~tone

PALEONTDLOGV - ARCHAEOLOGY- HISTORY
Name
Christina Conley
Christine Pereira
Dani Ziff
Sandonne Goad
Gabrielle Crowe
Clark Stevens
Amber Dobson
Sam Dunlap
Eric Zahn
Joyce Perry
Los Cerritos Wetlands Tribal Site Visit
7/23/2021
Phone
Gabrielino Tongva 626-407-8761
Indians of California
Coastal Commission 714-610-1864
Coastal Commission 310-991-5042
Gabrielino-Tongva 951-807-0479
Nation
Gabrielino-Shoshone 909-615-9837
Tribe
New West Land Co. 310-614-6636
Coastal Commission 562-590-5071
Gabrielino Tongva Tribe 909-262-9351
Tidal Influence 858-353-6 113
Juanefio Band of Mission 949-293-8522
Indians
Branch Offices
Email
Christina.rnarsden@alurnni. usc .edu
[email protected]
[email protected]. gov
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
sarndunlap@earthlinknet
[email protected]
[email protected]
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange. CA 92865
Office [714[ 974-8300
San Diego - Riverside - Morro Bay- Sacramento -Arizona
cogstone,com
Toll free (888) 333-3212
Federal Certifications WOSB. EDWOSB, SOB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE. UOBE
246
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 227
APPENDIX K. INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM AND QUESTIONS
247
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 228
cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY-HISTORY

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape S tudy
Cogstone will be conducting a stu dy to identify past, present and future use of the Los Cerritos Wetlands, led by Desiree Martinez, Cogstone Archaeologist. Interviews will be used for the landscape study for the Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority. You were selected as a possible participant in this study because of you r knowledge and expertise. Your participation in this research study is voluntary.

LARGER PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority has received funding to move forward on project level designs on 105-acres of wetlands in Seal Beach, near Heron Point, called the South Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Proj ect (South LCW Project). As part of the South LCW Project, the LCWA looks to accomplish the following:
• Conduct focused biological, geotechnical, and archeological surveys • Complete 65% restoration designs and project level CEQA • Complete a Traditional Cultural Landscape Study of the Los Cerritos Wetlands Cogstone has been hired to conduct the Traditional Cultural Landscape Study, including interviewing Tribal members from the Gabrielino Tongva and Acjachemen Nations.

WHAT SHOULD I KNOW ABOUT A RESEARCH STUDY?
• Whether or not you take part is up to you.
• You can agree to take part and later change your mind. • Your decision will not be held against you.
• You can ask all the questions you want before you decide.

WHY IS THIS RESEARCH BEING DOJ\TE?
This project is being done to better understand the Tongva and Acjachemen relationship to the Los Cerritos Wetlands, salt water marshes, and the greater cultural landscape, encompassing 3 miles around the Los Cerritos Wetlands, including the villages of Puvungna and Motuucheyngna. The project outcomes- summary within the cultural landscape study to inform the restoration.
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office [714) 974-8300
Branch Offices
San Diego - Riverside - Morro Bay - Sacramento - Arizona Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SOB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE
cogstone.com
Toll free {888) 333-3212
248
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 229
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) ARE THERE ANY RISKS IF I PARTICIPATE?
• Although unlikely, there may be questions which bring up sensitive topics. You may choose to not answer anything.
• You have the option of remaining anonymous within the report ARE THERE ANY BENEFITS IF I PARTICIPATE?
You will be compensated $250 for your participation. Furthermore, it is our hope that your communities and all people of Los Angeles will benefit from this research in the form of betterinformed policy and clearer understandings of what it will take for Los Angeles to become water sustainable and respect Indigenous sovereignty.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF IT AKE PART IN THIS STUDY?
If you volunteer to participate in this study, the researcher(s) will ask you to do the following:
• Answer the question listed in the document "LCW Tribal Interview Questions" • Interviewer will write notes during the interview
• Consent to audio recording of the interview
• Consent to video recording of the interview
• Consent to digital photographs to be taken during the interview You will be given a copies of:
• audio recording of the interview
• video recording of the interview, if any
• photos photographs to be taken during the interview
• transcript of audio and/or video recording

WILL INFORMATION ABOUT ME AND MY PARTICIPATION BE KEPT
CONFIDENTIAL?
If you choose to use your real name or consent to being recorded on a group video, your information will not be kept confidential.

If you request confidentiality, researchers will do their best to make sure that your private information is kept confidential. Even so, participating in research may involve a loss of privacy or a breach in confidentiality, especially if you are participating in conversation circles or events with other people beyond the research team. Study data will be physically and electronically secured, but with electronic data there is always a risk of breach of data security.

Use of personal information that can identify you:
cogstone .com
249
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 230
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) You will be identified as yourself unless otherwise requested. You may request to use an alias or to be kept out of a video.

How information about you will be stored:

Data produced by this project will include video/audio recordings of interviews and transcripts of these recordings, as well as written notes. These materials will be kept on a password protected server at Cogstone Resource Management. Participants will be provided copies of materials on a DVD or flash drive.

People and agencies that will have access to your information:

Research team members will have access to the recordings for the purposes of transcription and analysis. You can decide whether you want your name or an alias to be used in publications.

How long information from the study will be kept:

Videos, audio, written researcher notes and transcripts will be kept in perpetuity at Cogstone and may be donated to a research facility for future research.

WILL I BE PAID FOR MY PARTICIPATION?
Interviewees and conversation circle participants will receive a $250 honorarium in gratitude for your participation. Please fill out and return a W9 to Desiree WHO CAN I CONT ACT IF I HA VE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS STUDY? The research team:

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns about the research, you can talk to Desiree Martinez [email protected] (626) 722-1938.

WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS IF I TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY?
• You can choose whether you want to be in this study, and you may withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time.
• You may refuse to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. cogstone .com
250
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 231
Los Cerritos Wetlands Landscape Study Interviews (Cogstone 5418) Los Cerritos Wetlands Consent Form
Name:

Tl'ibal
Entity :

Addl'ess:

Phone : I Email: I
Check all that apply :

I A2I'ee To: Yes No
... participate in this study □ □
... have my name used within the Cultural □ □ Landscape study ... audio recording during the interview □ □ .. . video recording of the interview □ □ ... photographs to be taken during the interview □ □
Signature: Date: --------------
cogstone .com
251
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 232
cogstone

PALEONTOLOGY - ARCHAEOLOGY-HISTORY
Los Cerritos Wetlands Quest.ions
l . How did your tribal community use the Los Cerritos Wetlands in the past?

2. How did your tribal community use salt marshes in the past?

3. Have you or your family personally used the Los Cerritos in the past? If yes please explain how.

4. Do you know of other families that have used the Los Cerritos Wetlands?

5. Do you have any infonnation regarding the connection of the Los Cerritos wetland and the villages of Puvungna or Motuucheyngna?

6. Do you know of other places, villages, water sources e tc. that have connections to the Los Cerritos Wetlands?

7. What plants and animals within salt marshes, and Los Cerritos Wetlands in particular, are important to your tribal community?

8. What types of activities would you like to be able to do within the Los Cerritos Wetlands in the future?

9. What types of spaces would your tribal conmmnity like to have in the Los Cerritos Wetlands?

10. Anything to add?

11. Recommendations or other people to interview?
1518 West Taft Avenue
Orange, CA 92865
Office (714) 97 4-8300
Branch Offices
San Diego - Riverside - Morro Bay - Sacramento - Arizona Federal Certifications WOSB, EDWOSB, SOB
State Certifications DBE, WBE, SBE, UDBE
cogstone.com
Toll free (888) 333-3212
252
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 233
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX L. SURVEY RESULTS AND EXTENDED

PHASE I TESTING LOCATON MAPS
253
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 236
APPENDIX M. SOILS MAP
254
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 237
Figure M - 1. Soils map
Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration
City of Long Beach
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Seal Beach
Orange County, CA
II ii Project Area
USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey 2021
- 112 - Balcom clay loam
- 125 - Bolsa silty clay loam
- 173 - My ford sandy loam (2 - 9% slopes)
- 175 - Myford sandy loam (9 - 15%
slopes)
- IJ00LA- Urban land (dredged fill
substratum)
- 1230LA - Bolsa, drained-Typic
Xerothents, dredged spoil-Typic
Fluvaquents complex
0 250 500 feet
11111111 N
0 50 I 00 Meters i
111111111 A
1 :6,500 1 in = 542 ft
255
Cultural Resources Assessment for the Southern Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Project Cogstone 238
CONFIDENTIAL APPENDIX N. DPR SITE RECORDS
256
ENCLOSURE 2
257
All that glitters – Review of solar facility impacts on fauna P.A. Fleming
Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Harry Butler Institute, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:

Lake effect
Microclimate
Green energy
Solar panel
Glint
Glare
Bird
Bat
Fauna
Wildlife
Sustainable energy solutions
Climate change
SDG15: Life on Land
SDG13: Climate Action
SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

ABSTRACT
Utility-scale solar facilities (‘solar farms’/‘solar parks’) represent vast altered landscapes – currently covering ~0.025 % of the earth’s land surface. The rapid transformation of landscapes necessitates urgent research into biodiversity impacts of solar facilities worldwide. Evidence for fauna impacts at both concentrating solar power (CSP) and photovoltaic (PV) solar facilities was analysed. Solar facilities impact fauna through habitat loss and fragmentation, altered microclimate, and creation of novel habitat. Evidence suggests increases in insect, bird and bat species richness and abundance around solar facilitates built over degraded landscapes, likely due to introduction of novel habitat and presence of generalist species, but a decrease when comparison is made with intact reference landscapes. CSP facilities attract large numbers of flying insects and therefore insectivorous birds, while both heliostats (CSP) and PV solar panels are attractive to waterbirds, with the timing and direction of bird movements indicating they are responding to linear polarised light reflections from panels. While generalist bat species make use of solar facilities, data to date indicates a decrease in bat species richness and activity around solar facilities. Extrapolating from USA studies, an estimated 17.3 million birds die at solar facilities around the world every year. Direct impacts of solar facilities include injuries and deaths due to collisions and burns, while entrapment, starvation and increased predation risk are also recorded causes of mortalities.

Solar facilities significantly impact local fauna, particularly attracting and affecting insectivores and waterbirds.

Further research is needed to fully understand these effects and develop mitigation strategies for sustainable solar energy expansion.

1. Introduction
Solar energy is a key component in the global shift towards transitioning to a low carbon future and achieving the emissions targets established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [1]. However, as the total capacity of solar power facilities has increased, the impact on living organisms, particularly birds and bats, has also increased [2–4]. Many industries who are making the transition to green energy are required to consider whether utility-scale solar facilities could have detrimental impact on migrating shorebirds (protected under international legislation) or waterbirds and bats, and the balance of those risks with alternatives [4,5]. Such information is required to meet the demands of Environmental Impact Assessments, and warrants a critical review of available data.

At the end of 2023, an estimated 37,886 km2 of the earth’s surface (0.025 % of the world’s land area, or about the area of Denmark) was covered by solar panels, with the area increasing dramatically year-byyear since [6,7]. The vast expanses of solar facilities (also known as ‘solar parks’ or ‘solar farms’) have unique impacts on fauna that we are only just beginning to identify. The reflective surfaces of solar panels can attract insects (e.g., [8,9]), providing new feeding opportunities for bird and bat species (e.g., [10–13]). However, the glare from solar farms can also create a visual disturbance (illusion of water surface) potentially changing animal behaviour and collision risk [3,14]. The physical presence of solar panels can therefore disrupt migratory flight routes as well as foraging and nesting sites [3,15,16].

There have been a great many reviews of the effects of solar energy generation on wildlife (e.g., [4,17]), including many that are specific to solar energy generation in California USA (e.g., [4,7,18,19]), or that have specifically addressed whether waterbirds are attracted to solar facilities (e.g., [14,20]). However, much of the work reviewed by these articles is unpublished reports [7], with notably fewer publications of raw data (reviewed by [21]) than reviews on the topic. A general consensus across all published reviews is a call for additional research on some of the potential impacts of solar facilities, and movement beyond hypotheses with little supporting evidence or those based on extrapolation from other human infrastructures [21].

The marked variation in solar radiation and technological advancement across the globe (Fig. 1) influences where solar facilities have been E-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.115995
Received 1 April 2025; Received in revised form 13 June 2025; Accepted 22 June 2025 Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 Available online 15 July 2025
1364-0321/© 2025 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). 258
built, and therefore which biomes are affected [22]. However, there is also marked geographic bias in our understanding of the biodiversity impacts of solar energy, with the majority of studies of their biodiversity impacts coming from xeric environments in Europe or North America [20,21]. This geographic and climatic bias limits the generality of findings, providing insufficient insights into the potential impacts of solar infrastructure on diverse taxonomic groups across other ecological systems.

This review sets out to synthesise the potential impacts of glint and glare from solar facilities on insects, birds and bats, addressing four main questions.

1. Do solar facilities alter wildlife community species richness and abundance?

2. Do solar facilities attract (or cause avoidance) in volant species?

3. What are the causes of mortality associated with solar facilities?

4. What are the biodiversity costs of solar facilities, and can we mitigate these costs?
The conclusion briefly introduces some key remaining research gaps.

2. Methods
This literature search used the Harzing’s Publish or Perish platform to search through the Google Scholar platform on February 6, 2025. The search terms were ‘solar panel’ AND ‘glint’ or ‘glare’ AND either ‘bird’, ‘bat’, fauna’ or ‘wildlife’ (separate searches). Google Scholar was chosen in preference to other databases, as it picks up grey literature, including unpublished reports, theses, and other documentation that proved informative.

The literature search resulted in 954 articles, of which 207 articles were repetitions and 11 were unavailable (not English or publications not available through the Murdoch University library). The titles and abstracts of the remaining 736 articles were reviewed. The majority (651) were not deemed relevant to the topic. Many addressed glint and glare around airports and potential impact on humans (14), or environmental impact assessments (19). Others addressed topics such as glint and glare in terms of social acceptance and community preferences (7), but did not include fauna specifically. A total of 25 fauna-specific publications were revealed through this search. An additional 76 publications were added to this search by reviewing the references of key papers.

Solar power generation has two main types.
• Concentrated Solar Power (CSP): These plants use reflective flat (‘heliostats’) or curved (parabolic trough CSP system) mirrors to concentrate sunlight and generate thermal energy. The concentrated heat is directed to a central receiver to produce steam that drives turbines. This intense solar energy around concentrating towers can pose risks to flying animals, although trough facilities may reduce this risk. In a recent meta-analysis, Smallwood [7] reported 5.6 times more bird and 91.5 times more bat fatalities/MW/year at CSP projects compared with PV panels (Table 1). CSP was the first large-scale solar technology – and therefore there is more data on the biodiversity impacts of this form of solar energy (Box 1) – but CSP is now being rapidly surpassed by photovoltaic systems [25].
• Solar Photovoltaic (PV): PV systems use semiconductor cells to convert sunlight directly into electricity. Within the last decade, the price of PV systems has declined by 89 % [26] and utility-scale solar energy production is now rapidly increasing across the globe and is set to be the world’s largest renewable energy source by 2029 [27].

Because of the marked differences in the physical structure and mortality impacts of CSP and PV systems, their impacts are considered separately where data allows.

List of abbreviations including units and nomenclature
CSP Concentrated Solar Power
PV Photovoltaic
c-Si crystalline silicon
Fig. 1. The marked variation in solar radiation (background raster colours) and technological advancement across the globe influences where solar facilities have been built (dots reflect installed solar facilities, with relative size of the dots reflecting solar generation capacity), and therefore which biomes are affected. Sources:

Photovoltaic potential is derived from the Global Solar Atlas v2 [23], and represents the average daily totals. The data for operating solar facilities is sourced from Global Solar Power Tracker [24].

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 2 259
Box 1
Concentrating Solar Power plants
As of 2020, the least expensive utility-scale concentrated solar power stations (CSP) in the United States and worldwide were still five times more expensive than utilityscale photovoltaic power (PV) stations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrate d_solar_power) but CSP is one of the few renewable electricity technologies that can generate fully dispatchable or even fully baseload power at very large scale [25].

Therefore, despite its costs, CSP may have an important role to play in the decarbonisation of power grids as a dispatchable electricity source to balance the intermittent renewables, such as wind power and PV.

Southern California, USA, accounts for nearly 80 % of all utility scale solar facilities in California, and 50 % of all those developments across the USA [4]. Three large CSP systems located in the Mojave Desert of Southern California have been extensively studied for bird and bat mortalities (reviewed by [7]):
a.Solar One. The world’s first CSP plant was the 10-MW Solar One (1982–1988), which used water/steam as the heat transfer fluid. This was upgraded to Solar Two (1996–1999, using molten salt to capture and store the sun’s heat). Solar One was the first large-scale test of its kind and was one of the first utility-scale solar projects. Until its construction, the environmental hazards of solar power plant operation were unknown [28]. The only wildlife fatality monitoring reported before 2012 was in 1982–1983 at Solar One, with reports of birds being singed by concentrated sunlight from the heliostat fields at this CSP plant [28].
b.Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (‘Ivanpah’) (Fig. 2a). The 377-MW Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (2014 – present) [29] includes 173,500 heliostats that follow the sun’s trajectory, solar-field-integration software, and solar-receiver steam generators. Avian mortality due to singeing in high-flux regions in the air space above the heliostat fields at Ivanpah have been documented [3,30]. In these instances, birds had been exposed to concentrated solar radiation exceeding safe limits – estimated to be 4–50 kW/m2 for birds [31]. Exceeding these limits can result in fatal burns, highlighting the need for careful management and mitigation strategies [31].
c.Genesis. The Genesis Solar Energy Project (2013 – present) is a 140 MW CSP using solar trough technology, with a system of solar collector arrays composed of parabolic mirrors. Substantial bat mortality has been reported at Genesis, where the most dangerous project feature to bats was the evaporation ponds, followed by power blocks, fences, and solar collector arrays [7].
d.Other CSP facilities. Leading countries in CSP installations are Spain (total capacity of 2.3 GW), the USA (1.5 GW), China (596 MW), Morocco (533 MW) (Fig. 2b), and South Africa (500 MW). As of 2024, the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (Fig. 2c) facility has a total capacity of 950 MW, including a 100 MW CSP plant with the world’s tallest solar receiver tower (263 m), a 600 MW parabolic trough complex, and a 250 MW PV station.

3. Results and discussion
Here, I first describe studies that have examined insect, bird and bat communities around solar facilities, as the initial step towards understanding whether animals might be attracted to or avoid these sites.

Second, I present evidence supporting five potential mechanisms for why animals may be attracted to solar facilities, the ecological costs and potential mitigation measures for these aspects. Third, potential causes of mortalities are then described, and extrapolation from mortality monitoring is presented. Finally, this paper concludes by raising unanswered questions and identifying research needs to better understand the biodiversity impacts of solar facilities.

3.1. Do solar facilities alter wildlife community species richness and abundance?
A number of studies demonstrate significant differences in fauna diversity and community composition around solar facilities (Table 2; Table 3). Most fauna studies have been carried out through comparison between paired solar facilities and adjacent ‘reference’ habitat (see summary of data in Table 2).

In their meta-analysis, Blaydes et al. [32] analysed the weight of evidence to support 27 potential management interventions to improve and enhance biodiversity of insect pollinators, and report evidence for positive effects of presence of flowering plants, season-long access to resources, taller or structurally diverse vegetation, increasingly semi-natural or heterogeneous landscape, and proximity and connectivity to semi-natural habitat. By contrast, where the vegetation within solar facilities is heavily managed or removed (e.g. mown or heavily grazed), there is likely to be fewer insects.

There are contrasting results for birds, which could reflect the choice of reference landscape for comparison (Table 3b). Lower bird diversity and/or density have been reported for some solar facilities compared with adjacent untransformed land as reference [16,33,34]. By contrast, many solar facilities have been located on relatively flat, homogeneous terrain at sites where there was already substantial anthropogenic disturbance. In some such cases, for example compared with reference farmland, the addition of artificial resources at PV facilities can result in increased diversity of insects and birds (especially insectivores) [8, 10–12,17,35]. While there is minimal data available for bat communities, studies have shown reduced activity [8,13,36] and reduced feeding [37] for insectivorous bat species around PV facilities, but again highlight the importance of where the sampling is carried out (Table 3c).

This form of experimental design (comparing solar facilities with reference sites) has come under criticism, with preference for a beforeafter control-impact (BACI) approach identified as ideal [38]. It also needs to be recognised that there are survey limitations in terms of visibility and access constraints around PV facilities that can influence survey results [38], with visibility or acoustic recording interference at solar facilities compared with reference sites. Alternative experimental methods include quantifying measures such as reproductive success (e. g., pre-post disturbance [39], or comparison between habitats [35]), while Environmental Impact Assessments have necessitated the application of animal community composition at proposed sites with that at established solar facilities (e.g., [40]). The importance of comparable reference sites in interpreting impact of solar facilities [35], as well as experimental design appropriate to address the treatment difference, are therefore important considerations in interpreting results of these fauna studies.

3.2. Do solar facilities attract (or cause avoidance) in volant species? Five broad mechanisms have been presented in the literature to explain attraction to or avoidance of solar facilities. These include (1) the creation of novel habitats and resources, (2) the provision of water through evaporation ponds, and (3) increased foraging opportunity.

Furthermore, (4) the concentration of solar energy and (5) the reflection of light and sound from solar panels – representing large expanses of smooth flat surfaces – can create attraction or cause avoidance in animals. These five mechanisms are discussed below.

3.2.1. Lost, altered, and novel habitat
Utility-scale solar facilities have an enormous footprint, and consequent habitat loss is recognised as a key threat for fauna [19], with concerns raised for invertebrates, reptiles, bats, and birds (reviewed by [21]). About 2–6 ha of land are needed per megawatt (MW) of installed solar capacity [15]. The 10 largest solar facilities are in China, all measuring over 70 km2
, with the largest – Talatan Solar Park in China –
occupying ~420 km2 [43]. While the overall area required per MW for solar facilities is smaller than that required for wind farms (estimated 1–16 ha per MW to allow appropriate spacing to minimise interference between turbines), the degree of clearing for solar facilities is much greater than for wind energy (where only ~0.3 ha per MW clearing is required) [44]. As well as habitat loss and disturbance (e.g., [9,45]), solar facilities also contribute to habitat fragmentation, with large expanses of solar panels and other infrastructure (e.g., power lines and non-permeable fencing) creating barriers to species’ daily, seasonal, and migratory movements [3,15,16].

Solar facility installations have largely happened in deserts and across unused farmland or decommissioned industrial sites (e.g., [46, 47]). There, solar panels shade the ground and alter the microclimate underneath them [48], influencing the absorption and reflectance of heat and leading to both heating and cooling effects at different scales (e.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 3 260
g., [49–52]). Studies have identified effects on soil moisture (e.g., [51, 53]) and the soil microbiome [51], which in turn influence plant growth [9,51–56].

PV panels can also provide thermal refuges for fauna that would be otherwise limited in specific contexts (e.g., deserts), or can offer novel foraging, roosting, sheltering, and nesting habitats [21]. For example, Harvey and Associates [30] recorded Common ravens Corvus corax and six raptor species perching on facilities at the Ivanpah CSP facility.

WEST [33] present comparative data for Ivanpah and adjacent desert, which demonstrate American kestrels Falco sparverius were seven times more commonly recorded at the solar facilities, where they were recorded frequently perched on structures (Fig. 3). At a PV facility in South Africa, Visser et al. [16] reported aerial hawkers using the panels as foraging perches, ground-dwelling francolins foraging in the shade under the panels, and five species nesting on the solar panel supports.

Jeal et al. [34] recorded Western barn owl (Tyto alba) roosting in torque tubes (hollow, structural elements that connect rows of solar panels).

Similarly, Golawski, Mitrus and Jankowiak [12] identified that PV facilities in Poland provided safe breeding sites for birds, while fences around the facilities served as observation points, foraging sites, and singing perches.

3.2.1.1. Costs. The transformation of landscapes under solar facilities can lead to dramatic loss of habitat and population connectivity, but also represents novel habitat that can benefit generalist species [33], altering food webs. These changes contribute to a general finding of more open country/grassland, aerial, and generalist ground-foraging birds [11,16, 33] and generalist bat species [13] at solar facilities compared with reference sites. Furthermore, while animals may benefit from the use of solar facilities for nesting, reproductive success at such sites can be reduced by the presence of predators within the facility footprint. For example, mammal and bird scavengers (e.g., kit fox Vulpes macrotis, coyote Canis latrans, Common raven) may be attracted to solar energy facilities by availability of unmanaged refuse and carcasses of birds that succumbed to operation-related injuries (e.g., collision with infrastructure) [3,18,33,57,58].

In addition to loss of habitat, fences create barriers to species’ movements, and can cause entrapment. For example, Visser et al. [16] noted that large-bodied birds become trapped between double fencing, lacking the manoeuvrability to take off. Similarly, water-obligate Fig. 2. Examples of concentrating solar power (CSP) facilities. (a) The eastern tower of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, showing concentrated solar flux either side of the tower. (b) the Ouarzazate Solar Power Station in Morocco is the world’s largest CSP plant at 510 MW. Note the evaporation ponds to the southern boundary of the image (immediately above the scale bar) (c) The Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park, United Arab Emirates, including parabolic trough CSP and PV facilities, is one of the world’s largest renewable projects, which will reach 5 GW by 2030. Sources: (a) Craig Dietrich - Flickr: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, (b) and (c) Google Earth.

Table 1
Average [95 % confidence interval] reported bird and bat fatalities/MW/year for three Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and 10 photovoltaic (PV) facilities in California, USA [7].

Average [95 % CI] fatalities/MW/year
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)
facilities
Solar photovoltaic (PV)
facilities
Birds 64.61 [41.74–149.95] 11.61 [8.37–17.56]
Bats 5.49 [0.25–11.65] 0.06 [0.01–0.10]
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 4 261
species that require water to take off are likely to be trapped by solar facility fencing [59], and Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus – which prefer to run rather than fly – are disproportionately represented in mortalities at Ivanpah (Fig. 4; [33]).

3.2.1.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. Fencing solar facilities is vital for human safety and security of structures, but fencing design could be modified to reduce the chances of creating barriers and causing animal entrapment. To mitigate barriers to species’ movements [3,15, 16], it may be possible to create permeable fencing that selectively allows animal passage. For example, a photovoltaic solar facility constructed in Pahrump, Nevada, USA (Valley Electric Association), left the majority of native plants and washes in place when installing the solar panels, and kept 30 openings in the fences (25 cm wide by 18 cm tall) for desert fauna to freely pass [48] (Fig. 5). Wildlife movements for this pilot ‘wildlife friendly’ solar facility are being monitored, with tortoises, rattlesnakes, black-tailed jackrabbits, and kit foxes reported using the fence openings to date [60].

3.2.2. Evaporation ponds
Another reason birds and bats could be attracted to solar facilities is the presence of standing water in evaporation ponds associated with the facilities (e.g. Fig. 2b). Environmental dust on the panel surface prevents sunlight from penetrating the solar cells, reducing energy conversion efficiency [61]; washing panels and dust suppression management is therefore common practice in many facilities [19]. First generation monocrystalline and polycrystalline silicon (c-Si) PV panels contain hazardous chemicals such as lead, ethylene vinyl acetate, chlorofluorocarbons, and poly/brominated flame retardants, while second-generation photovoltaic panels include cadmium telluride (CdTe), copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS), and other heavy metal-containing materials [20]. Up to 18 metals can be released from solar panels, including aluminium from supporting structures, while substantial amounts of lead, cadmium and antimony leach from c-Si panels, and chromium, selenium, cadmium and lead leach from thin-film panels [62]. Acid rain can increase leaching, especially from broken or damaged PV panels [20]. Water is also used at solar facilities for turbine cooling, where it is often treated with chemicals (e.g. selenium) to prevent fouling and to control the pH [19]. The wastewater from these activities is then held in evaporation ponds to concentrate for disposal.

3.2.2.1. Costs. Evaporation ponds can act as a lure for fauna, but can also increase various risks for these animals. Pollution caused by leaching of chemical substances into evaporation ponds can increase exposure to toxic chemicals [63,64], and could be lethal to birds and other animals attracted to these ponds [19,20,65]. For example, selenium toxicity has been linked to high egg mortality and birth defects in birds using evaporation ponds [65].

Animals can also become trapped at the ponds. For example, Jeal et al. [34] reported 37 carcasses of 15 species (seven bird, seven mammal and one reptile species) around evaporation ponds at a PV facility in South Africa, compared with only 8 carcasses in the solar field.

The authors attributed deaths of half of the animals to drowning (the ponds had a slippery plastic lining, inhibiting escape), and noted entrapment and aggression could contribute to mortalities of young birds.

3.2.2.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. Few studies have included evaporation ponds in mortality assessments for solar facilities [3,16,34] although – as the deaths of birds and mammals at these ponds verify – they are important to consider for future management improvements [15]. Fencing and bird-exclusion netting are important for restricting fauna access to evaporation ponds [34], but birds can become entrapped in the nets, creating an even greater impact; mesh size, thickness and maintenance are therefore important considerations [66]. For open waterbodies, providing ‘ladders’, reducing the slope of the pond margins, and non-slip pond lining are all good management options [34].

3.2.3. Increased foraging opportunities
Physical structures associated with solar facilities can provide novel niches and microhabitats that attract insects (see Section 3.1). For example, Diehl et al. [67] proposed that insects may be attracted to the prominence of solar towers at the Ivanpah CSP facility, as these tall features stood out in the desert landscape marked by low profile vegetation. Diurnal aquatic insects – including Diptera, Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera, Odonata, Heteroptera and Coleoptera species – are also attracted to polarised light reflected by solar panels [68,69], with many aquatic species seeing the panels as potential breeding sites (see Section

3.2.5). Changes in vegetation associated with management of the facilities can also attract insects. Unmanaged vegetation under solar panels may provide suitable habitat for insects [32] and therefore insectivores (e.g., [8,17]).

Table 2
Examples of differences in fauna species diversity, species richness, or activity/abundance between solar facilities and adjacent reference habitat.

Metric: Less at solar facilities No difference More at solar facilities Species diversity • Arthropods [8,41]
• Birds [17]
Species richness • Birds [34], [35]
B
• Bats [8]
• Arthropods [41]
B
• Birds [8,33]
• Bats [36]
• Arthropods [9,42], [41]
B
• Birds [11,17], [35]
B
Activity or
abundance
(e.g., counts)
• Birds [16]
A, [34], [35]B
• Bats [8,13,36,37]
• Arthropods [41,42] • Arthropods [9]
• Birds [8,10–12,17], [35]
B
A p = 0.06; B results depended on which reference habitat was compared.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 5 262
Table 3
Examples of studies comparing solar facilities and reference sites for (a) invertebrates, (b) birds and (c) bats.

Study Solar facility Reference sites Conclusion (solar facilities compared with reference) a. Invertebrates
Montag, Parker and
Clarkson [8],
southern UK
11 PV solar facilities Nearby arable land (same farm) • Greater numbers of butterfly species (p = 0.008) • Nearly twice the numbers of bumblebees (p = 0.06)
Graham et al. [9],
Oregon, USA
1 single-axis tracking PV panel facilitya full
shade
Full-sun reference plots outside the solar
facility
• Lower pollinating insect density
• Reduced species richness
• Reduced species diversity
partial shade Full-sun reference plots outside the solar facility
• Greater species richness in summer
• Greater species diversity in summer
• Greater abundance in summer.
b. Birds
WEST [33], California,
USA
40 plots within the 377-MW Ivanpah CSP
facility
40 offsite plots (1–3 km from the
heliostat arrays; ‘desert’)
• Similar species richness
• Fewer birds (0.24-fold)
• Different bird species communities (one-way PERMANOVA calculated from data presented in their Table 2a; pseudo-F = 11.89, p = 0.028). Generalist species more common, e.g., black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata, house finch Haemorhous mexicanus, and horned lark Eremophila alpestris Visser et al. [16],
Northern Cape,
South Africa
5 transects within 96-MW 180 ha PV facility
(grass and low ground cover between the
solar arrays promoted after construction)
5 transects within adjacent
untransformed landscape
• Marginally fewer birds (0.70 times; P = 0.06).
• Similar numbers of species
• Different bird species communities - shrub/woodland
species largely absent, while open country/grassland,
aerial, and generalist species more common
Jeal et al. [34],
Northern Cape,
South Africa
8 ‘sub fields’ sampled within 50-MW CSP
parabolic trough facility
44 transects adjacent rangelands • Lower abundance (0.007 times; p < 0.001) • Lower species richness (p < 0.001)
Kitazawa et al. [35],
Hokkaido, Japan
3 PV solar facilities Wetlands (5 plots) or abandoned
farmland (5 plots)
• Lower bird species richness
• Reduced abundance
Pastures (6 plots) or cropland (6 plots) • Comparable bird species richness and abundance DeVault et al. [10],
Arizona, Colorado,
and Ohio, USA
5 PV arraysb 5 nearby airport grasslandsb (typically
mowed at least once per year during the
growing season)
• About twice the bird activity (mean across locations =

3.468 birds per ha) than in airfields (1.598),
• Estimated ‘bird hazard index’ (combined bird mass [kg]/ ha/month/location) not significantly different (p = 0.808).

Montag, Parker and
Clarkson [8],
southern UK
11 PV solar facilities Nearby arable land (same farm) • Greater abundance of insectivorous birds (authors attributed to greater floral diversity).

Jarˇcuˇska et al. [17],
Slovakia
32 PV solar facilities 32 adjacent grassland plots • Greater total bird species richness (especially insectivores) (p = 0.030)
• Greater diversity (p = 0.004)
• No difference in overall abundance (p = 0.903)
Copping et al. [11],
Fens, UK.
6 solar facilities – plots on ‘mixed habitat’ c Adjacent arable farmland • Greater (2.6 times) bird abundance • Greater (2.45 times) species richness
Same 6 solar facilities – plots with ‘simple
habitat’
d
Adjacent arable farmland • Greater (1.4 times) bird abundance • Comparable (0.96 times) species richness
Golawski, Mitrus and
Jankowiak [12],
Poland
43 PV facilities constructed over farmland
(sampled on boundaries of facilities)
43 reference sites ~500m away • Greater bird diversity (p = 0.008) • Different bird community composition
c. Bats
Montag, Parker and
Clarkson [8],
southern UK
8 PV solar facilities Paired plots on arable land (same farm) • Comparable bat species richness (p = 0.55) • Comparable bat activity (p = 0.09)
Szabadi et al. [13],
Hungary
15 PV solar facilities (each with a mosaic of
landuses)
Adjacent other human-altered habitats
(e.g., arable land, grassland and green
areas within settlements)
• Bat species that commonly adapt to anthropogenic habitat were commonly recorded at the solar facilities
• Detection of feeding buzzes at solar farms proved that bats not only commuted over this habitat but also foraged there.

Adjacent semi-natural habitats (forests) • Species of conservation concern – those that were more commonly associated with forest habitat – were less
common; 4 taxa: p < 0.01
Adjacent semi-natural habitats
(watersides)
• Reduced overall bat activity (all species grouped) (P <

0.001)
Tinsley et al. [36], UK 19 PV facilities on either grazed or mowed grassland, or on cut arable crops
Middle of solar facility and open
reference field sites
• Reduced activity (overall 0.33 fold difference); activity of 4 (of 8) species significantly reduced (p < 0.05)
• No effect on species richness (p = 0.282).

Boundaries of solar facility and reference
field sites (i.e., hedgerows, tree lines,
woodland or vegetated ditches)
• Reduced activity (overall 0.54 fold difference); activity of 4 (of 8) species significantly reduced (p < 0.05)
• No effect on species richness (p = 0.942).

Barr´e et al. [37],
Rhone Valley, ˆ
France.
9 PV facilities built on reclaimed industrial
sites and agricultural land
paired reference sites (100–500 m away) • Bats flew faster (+10 to +44 %) and straighter (+33 %) (changes in flight features that are explicit indicators of a decrease in bat feeding behaviour) with lower probability of prey capture attempts (− 18 to − 39 %).
a Panel movements allowing varying shade treatments.
b Both airfield and PV arrays likely to be affected by active bird control at one site (i.e., harassment and lethal removal). c ‘mixed habitat’: infrequent cutting or grazing of the grass around the solar panels, which allowed greater sward height and the presence of wildflowers). d ‘simple habitat’: vegetation intensively managed through cutting or grazing.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 6 263

3.2.3.1. Costs. Insects attracted to solar facilities in turn attract foraging insectivorous birds and bats [3,68], which can increase their risk of collision and burn injuries [21]. For example, 41 of 47 recorded bird mortalities due to solar flux at Ivanpah were primarily insectivores, indicating they had been foraging around the CSP collection towers (by contrast, waterbirds and other birds that feed on vegetation were not reported to have the same burn injuries) [3].

3.2.3.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. It may be possible to reduce attractiveness of solar facilities for fauna. For example, it has been noted that there are fewer insects within PV solar facilities where the vegetation is heavily managed or removed (e.g. mown or heavily grazed) [32], which in turn could reflect reduced bird and bat [37] activity. Clearing vegetation around CSP solar towers has also been implemented to make the area less attractive to birds at CSP facilities [70].

Curtailment options for CSP facilities – suspending operations at key migration times – has also been recommended to avoid migration periods when numbers of aerial foraging birds are likely to be greatest [70].

Preventing birds and bats from roosting and perching on panels may also reduce the likelihood of them foraging around the facility. For example, a range of potential deterrents have been trialled at Ivanpah, including LED lighting, perching-deterrent spikes, ‘BirdBuffer’ chemosensory deterrent, ‘BirdGuard’ sonic deterrent to deter avian species from entering this area associated with elevated flux mortality, and an Acoustic Technology Ultrasonic Bat Deterrence system to interfere with echolocation capabilities of bats [33].

3.2.4. Concentrated solar energy
Concentrated solar flux associated with CSP facilities can attract insects that would normally seek out solar radiation [21]. For example, the bright light and heat around CSP collection towers (e.g., Fig. 2a) attracts diurnal insects. Although absolute numbers were not quantified, Kagan et al. [3] reported many hundreds of killed butterflies, dragonflies and other insects at Ivanpah. Diehl et al. [67] assessed different survey methods to detect and observe animals flying near the Ivanpah towers. A modified x-band radar recorded 708,872 biological tracks in May (approximately equal numbers of insects and vertebrates) when insect activity peaked around mid-day and diurnal bird activity peaked late afternoon, and 428,207 tracks in September (about three quarters of traces identified as insects) when activity of both insects and vertebrates (bats and nocturnal birds not distinguished) peaked in early evening to midnight. By contrast, video imagery recorded an undisclosed number of instances of insects incinerated in the solar flux, but only detected a total of 37 birds or suspected birds near the towers. A total of 1922 arthropods were recorded in Malaise traps deployed on the ground around the facility, although these mostly represented terrestrial species, and did not reflect the species composition of burned insects accumulated on the ground. The insect activity associated with the CSP towers in turn attracts aerial insectivores including birds and bats [3].

3.2.4.1. Costs. Burn-related mortalities are a significant risk for CSP solar facilities. Birds can be burned or incinerated when they fly through concentrated beams of solar flux, where air temperatures may reach more than 800 ◦C (temperatures greater than 160 ◦C result in compromised keratin molecular structure and permanently weaken bird feathers, [71]). Because of these extreme temperatures, deaths of small animals flying around the CSP towers may be difficult to detect or identify [67]. Experimental work has shown that temperatures greater than 160 ◦C result in compromised keratin molecular structure and permanently weaken bird feathers [71].

Burn deaths at CSP facilities are specifically relevant to aerial insectivores (e.g., swallows, swifts and martins), which spend most of their time in flight and are therefore likely to increase the chances of encountering space where there is high solar flux [3,28]. Depending on the severity and length of exposure, exposure to the concentrated solar flux results either in immediate death (catastrophic loss of flying ability) or delayed mortality because of flight impairment [3]. Therefore, in addition to direct immediate mortalities, aerial foraging birds that are singed and injured would be unable to feed, and injured birds would be more vulnerable to predators [2,3].

The unique circumstances of CSP facilities was shown by Kagan et al. [3], who compared bird mortalities for three solar plants that had different technology: Desert Sunlight (PV), Genesis (CSP with trough) and Ivanpah (CSP with concentrating tower). Burn injuries were substantially higher for Ivanpah, where burning (‘solar flux injury’) (47 of 141 carcasses) was as common as collision trauma (43 of 141 carcasses) as a cause of death. Remaining samples (46 of 141 carcasses) were in too poor condition to determine cause of death (46 of 141).

The bright lights around CSP facilities could also increase collision risk due to glint and glare blinding. While Kagan et al. [3] noted that there was no evidence found for significant tissue burns or eye damage caused by exposure to solar flux around the Ivapah CSP towers, it is likely that visible tissue damage is not prerequisite for blinding impacts to nevertheless happen. For example, the issue of glare from large expanses of solar panels has been recognised as a significant health and safety issue in civil aviation, raising concern either from pilots or air-traffic controllers (e.g., [31,72,73]), and for drivers where solar panels line roads (e.g., [74]).

Although glint and glare hazards are recognised for humans, the question of ocular blinding has rarely been addressed in the wildlife literature. Jeal et al. [34] recorded that when flushed during the day, Western barn owls – normally only active at night – would swipe or collide with mirrors, suggesting temporary blindness due to the panels.

Collision due to acute blinding could also be exacerbated from high-speed predator-prey encounters in which either the prey or pursuer may collide with panels [7]. Smooth surfaces such as mirrors and smooth glass (on PV units) produce more specular reflections with greater intensity and tighter beams (and therefore greater risk for ocular hazards) compared with CSP trough solar receivers (which produce more diffuse reflections with lower solar intensities) [31].

3.2.4.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. McCrary et al. [28] reported 13 of 70 recorded bird fatalities (19 %; 7 species) at Solar One CSP were likely due to burning, as evidenced by heavily singed flight and contour feathers. The authors concluded that the primary hazard was from heliostats in standby mode – when the heliostats focussed on four small areas (~5m in diameter) of sky around the tower at a height of 80 m (rather than on the receiver) [28]. By contrast with the high-temperature receiver itself, which emits a considerable amount of thermal radiation, it was recognised that the irradiance in the air around the receiver during standby was optically transparent, and it was unlikely that the birds were able to detect heat at high-flux regions around the receiver [31]. Using this information, computer programming has been developed to control heliostat angles during standby, thereby ensuring that air temperatures remain below 160 ◦C, reducing the incidence of ‘hot spots’ [31,71].

3.2.5. Solar panels represent large expanses of smooth, flat surfaces Many animals, including insects and birds, have well-tuned polarisation vision (reviewed by [75]) and use the information from polarised light for navigation and to locate resources (reviewed by [68]). Therefore, polarised light pollution – “light that has undergone linear polarisation by reflecting off smooth, dark buildings, or other human-made objects” – can represent an ecological trap for these species [68]. For example, orientation towards horizontally polarised light sources is the primary guidance mechanism used by at least 300 diurnal aquatic insect species (e.g., dragonflies, mayflies, caddisflies, stoneflies, diving beetles, water bugs) in their search for suitable water bodies to act as feeding or P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 7 264
breeding habitat, and oviposition sites [68]. Because of their strong horizontal polarisation signature, artificial polarising surfaces (e.g., asphalt, gravestones, cars, plastic sheeting, pools of oil, glass windows, and solar panels) are commonly mistaken for bodies of water by ‘polartactic’ species [68,69,76].

Smooth darker surfaces (such as solar panels) are more effective at producing polarised light than are brighter surfaces [68]. At the Brewster angle, solar panels polarise reflected light almost completely (degree of polarisation d ≈ 100 %, substantially exceeding typical polarisation values for water d ≈ 30–70 %). Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] demonstrated that both thin-film and c-Si solar panels are capable of polarising sunlight to a high-degree (visible maximum: 83 %; ultraviolet maximum 84 %), with at least 35 % polarised light over a narrower range of vertical angles, such as a bird would be exposed to Fig. 3. Raptor behaviour around Ivanpah and adjacent desert sites, showing flight height and perching. Drawn from raw data presented by [33 Table 6]. There were significantly more observations of American kestrels at the Ivanpah solar facilities than for the desert sites (Chi-test χ2 1 = 304.2, p < 0.001); none of the other raptor
species were significantly more or less common (p > 0.05).

Fig. 4. Comparison between ’avian use’ surveys (WEST, 2016 Table 2a; x-axis) and mortality monitoring (WEST, 2016 Table 7; y-axis) at Ivanpah. Species towards the top left of the graph show mortalities that are disproportionate to other species in respect to their relative activity around the heliostats. The ’bird use’ data presented by WEST (2016, Table 2a) show significant differences in bird species communities recorded between the solar facility and adacent desert (one-way PERMANOVA calculated from their data: pseudo-F = 11.89, p = 0.028), with species more commonly recorded using the heliostats including generalist species (in descending order of percentage contribution to the difference between solar facility and adacent desert by SIMPER analysis: Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata, Horned lark Eremophila alpestris, House finch Haemorhous mexicanus, Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta, Common raven Corvus corax, Rock pigeon Columba livia, American pipit Anthus rubescens, and Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus).

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 8 265
when they are flying over a solar facility.

Solar panels can therefore be mistaken for waterbodies by waterbreeding insects (e.g., mayflies, dolichopodid dipterans, and tabanid flies exhibit oviposition behaviour above solar panels), and may even be more attractive than waterbodies [69]. Similarly, it has been argued that birds mistake reflection from a solar facility for a water body and hone in on it, with the risk that solar panels can therefore represent ‘mega-traps’ [3,14]. This ‘Lake Effect’ Hypothesis [77] implies that (1) birds in flight perceive large solar PV facilities as water bodies, (2) reorient and descend toward those facilities, and (3) in some cases either collide with the panels or are unable to take off from the ground [14]. Evidence for these three steps is described below.

First, there is experimental evidence that birds can detect linear polarisation of light (reviewed by [78]). Certain waterbirds have been shown to be directly attracted to the bright reflection of light from pools of oil (in which they drown) presumably as they were searching for water [79]. Experimentally testing this concept, Bern´ath et al. [79] laid out shiny white and dark plastic sheets and recorded bird behaviour around the material. They recorded a range of species approaching and attempting to drink or forage. For example, White storks (Ciconia ciconia) and Great white egrets (Egretta alba) attempted to probe the surface, while Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), House martins (Delichon urbia), and Sand martins (Riparia riparia) attempted to drink from and forage above the sheets. This field study suggests that the birds mistook optical cues of the sheets as the surfaces as small waterbodies.

Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] reported three experiments that similarly showed that birds could see terrestrial sources of polarised light, and use those cues to locate waterbodies. The authors showed the feeders with high polarised light properties were more conspicuous to wild birds and guided their feeding behaviour. Next, they simulated the polarised light visual properties of natural water bodies and tested bird responses to surfaces over 4 days. Finally, they compared ground-based water sources of different polarisation properties and showed that birds preferentially visited the treatment (black) with the highest degree of polarised light in both the visible and ultraviolet ranges for bathing and drinking. Their results confirm that many different bird species can Fig. 5. A ‘wildlife friendly’ photovoltaic solar facility constructed in Pahrump, Nevada, USA (Valley Electric Association), (a) left large open areas of native vegetation between banks of PV panels. (b) The ground was not bladed or graded at construction, and this resulted in an uneven/wavy placement of the panels, which would break up light reflection from the panels. (c) Mojave desert tortoises Gopherus agassizii were removed from the area during construction, kept in a holding pen, and then released back into the facility after construction was done. (d) Thirty openings at the bottom of the fences (25 cm wide by 18 cm tall) allowed tortoises and other wildlife to move in and out of the facility. Photos by Dr Jennifer Wilkening, Research Ecologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 9 266
detect horizontally polarised light and that they can use that information to help locate waterbodies, as evidenced by feeding and bathing behaviour.

Second, there is evidence that birds will reorient towards solar facilities. Millions of migratory songbirds initiate migration around twilight, when the sun is near the horizon and the maximum degree of polarisation is present (typically 70–80 % in clear, blue sky) (reviewed by [78,80]). There is substantial experimental support from behavioural experiments that many migratory songbirds rely on this celestial information for compass orientation, responding strongly to manipulations in direction of light polarisation [78]. Conflicting results for experiments with different bird species suggest species-specific differences in the use of polarised light versus magnetic information for orientation, or differences in the ecological situations under which birds use both types of information [78,80].

Given the influence of polarised light in navigation and orientation towards waterbodies, it raises the question of whether animals are diverted from their migratory paths due to polarised light pollution from solar facilities. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] used portable X-band radar to track bird movements at two PV facilities to see if birds changed their flight paths (directions or altitudes) toward PV facilities. Evidence for change in direction was inconclusive, which the authors attributed to relief in terrain overwhelming the potential influence of the presence of PV panels on direction of travel. However, south-bound birds (possibly migrating) were more commonly recorded descending, especially near midday, suggesting they were seeking water or refuge in the extremely arid landscape [14]. Takacs et al. [ ´ 81] used a drone-mounted polarisation camera to capture reflected light from fixed-orientation solar panels, showing the largest panel areas with exactly or nearly horizontal polarisation at sunrise and at sunset when in parallel with the panels, and around noon when the drone flew perpendicular to the solar panel rows. The degree of polarised light pollution from solar facilities therefore varies depending on the angle of approach, as well as time of day, and these time of day differences need to be accounted for when interpreting the birds’ behaviour.

Third, there is evidence that birds will collide with solar panels or become trapped on the ground. WEST [33] recorded four
water-associated species associated with the heliostats at Ivanpah (one record each of: American avocet Recurvirostra americana, Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca, Killdeer Charadrius vociferus, and Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla). Kosciuch et al. [82] synthesised results from fatality monitoring studies at 10 PV facilities across 13 site-years in California and Nevada, reporting 86 species amongst 669 avian detections. Waterbirds were recorded at all of the facilities in the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts Bird Conservation Region. Notably, 54 % of all carcasses were just ‘feather-spot’ remains, and of the intact carcasses, cause of mortality could also not be determined for approximately 61 % (86 % of ducks and geese, 93 % of grebes, and 100 % of loons), significantly limiting power of the study to make conclusions about cause of death in waterbirds at solar facilities [82]. Extending this work to live bird counts, Kosciuch et al. [59] recorded presence of aquatic birds at PV facilities. Together, these records provide compelling evidence that waterbirds have been attracted to solar facilities, suggesting they perceived the presence of water at the sites [59].

As well as birds, it is possible that solar facilities can interfere with bat movement patterns. The large expanses of flat solar panel surfaces reflect sound waves and can therefore interfere with navigation by microbats, causing echoes and reflections of echolocation calls. Bats perceive horizontal, smooth surfaces (‘acoustic mirrors’) as water due to their similar echo-acoustic properties, and may attempt to drink from these regardless of the material they are made of, as demonstrated in both laboratory settings [83] and in nature [84]. Echolocation was the main way these bats recognised water surfaces, taking dominance over conflicting sensory information provided by e.g., vision, olfaction, touch and taste. Solar panels would also reflect moonlight, and reflected polarised light from panels could be perceived as waterbodies by bats [85].

3.2.5.1. Costs. Collision risk is a major cause of death at both PV and CSP facilities, with flying wildlife (bats, birds, and aquatic insects) potentially colliding with reflective surfaces of PV panels or CSP heliostats, or associated infrastructure (i.e., power lines and perimetral fences). Direct mortality through collision is one of the most addressed impacts of PV energy [21], although most information comes from unpublished reports that employ non-standardised methodologies [7].

In the first study to report mortalities at solar facilities, McCrary et al. [28] reported 70 bird fatalities (representing 26 species) at Solar One (CSP with concentrating tower), with the most frequent cause of mortality identified as collision (evidenced as the presence of broken bones, usually mandibles or wings) accounting for 81 % of recorded bird deaths (20 species). Most (>75 %) collisions were associated with the mirrored heliostats. Similarly, Kagan et al. [3] reported that trauma – including impact, predation and undetermined trauma – was a significant cause of mortality for three different technology solar plants, representing 56 % of 61 mortalities at Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (PV), 30 % of 141 mortalities at Ivanpah (CSP), and 26 % of 31 mortalities at Genesis (CSP).

The linear polarised light pollution from solar facilities can cause diversion from flight paths for waterbirds. Kagan et al. [3] reported a greater proportion of waterbird mortalities at Desert Sunlight (PV) (coots, grebes and cormorants making up 48 % of all bird mortalities at this facility) compared with the two CSP facilities where aerial and terrestrial foragers represented most mortalities (Genesis 80 % and Ivanpah 89 %) (Chi-test assuming an equal proportion of air, terrestrial and water foraging guilds between the three facilities: χ2 4 = 17.35, p =

0.002; analysis carried out by myself based on data presented in their report). The difference was attributed to size and continuity of reflection from hard surfaces differing between facilities where the long banks of adjacent panels provided a continuous sky/water appearance at Desert Sunlight (compared with parabolic shape at Genesis and dark appearance from above at Ivanpah) [3]. By the time a bird may realise the panels are not water, it may be too late for the bird to stop its dive from the sky and fly away [86]. Birds that collide with the panels are also likely to be disoriented or injured and more vulnerable to predation [3].

As well as increasing the direct risk of collision and injuries, diversion off flight paths will increase depletion of energy reserves, potentially stranding animals and leading to mortality from starvation.

Obstruction from panels and fencing can also hinder birds from taking-off [3]. For example, water-obligate birds that require water for take-off (sensu [82]) – including loons (Gaviiformes), grebes (Podicipediformes), cormorants (Suliformes), coots (Gruiformes) and some ducks (Anseriformes; e.g., Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis) – and those that use water for some aspect of their life history (e.g., family Charadriidae) are amongst the mortalities at solar facilities. Stranding of these birds would contribute to the disproportionate number of waterbirds represented amongst the cases where starvation has been identified as cause of death [3].

Solar panels can also elicit aggressive behavioural interactions due to the novel reflective surfaces. Smallwood [7] argued that reflected self-images on CSP heliostats or PV panels might elicit aggressive responses of birds motivated to defend territory, as has been shown for collision with windows, where males and young birds can both be significantly overrepresented relative to their abundance in habitat surrounding the building [87,88]. Substantiating this prediction requires behavioural observation of how birds interact with the solar panels.

Finally, clutter due to physical structures causes echolocation challenges and confusion for microbats [37], and PV solar farms can act as sensory traps for bats, challenging their ability to navigate [36].

Furthermore, bats mistake smooth, vertical surfaces as clear flight paths, repeatedly colliding with them [89]. For example, Ingeme et al. [90] showed that many Critically Endangered Southern bent-wing bats P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 10 267
(Miniopterus orianae bassanii) collided with a smooth metal fence placed at 45◦ outside a maternity roost, and 1.03 % of juveniles consequently suffered critical injuries that warranted their euthanasia. More data on cause of death is required for bat mortalities to understand why they die at solar facilities.

3.2.5.2. Can we mitigate some of these costs?. Approximately one-third of the incident light received by a solar cell is reflected [61]. Glare from solar panels around airports has been mitigated by considered locations, or blocking light reflection in particular directions by adding a tree screen around the facility (e.g., [91]). Alternatively, application of antireflective coatings and/or texturing to the panels (‘nanocoatings’) could be used to reduce associated glare and glint [92]. Nanocoatings redirect incident light to trap it – improving light absorption [61] and can substantially improve system performance [91,92], increasing panel energy efficiency by up to ~50 % [93,94]. Because they also reduce the degree to which solar panels polarise light, nanocoatings also have value in reducing biodiversity impacts of solar facilities. For example, Horvath ´ [95] reported that microtextured surfaces on solar panels greatly reduced polarised light pollution and reduced attractiveness to polartactic insects.

Larger scale modifications have also proven effective in reducing fauna impacts. For example, white outlines and/or white grid lines on solar panels – which result in a loss of less than 1.8 % in energyproducing surface area – reduce horizontally polarising light and are 10- to 26-fold less attractive to aquatic egg-laying insects than the same panels without white partitions [69,96]. Mechanical surface modification can also reduce the likelihood of bat collisions due to mistaking the surface for water. For example, Abdul Rahman et al. [97] placed string of different diameters across flat smooth plates, and showed that bats significantly decreased the frequency of drinking attempts with increasing diameter of the strings. It does not appear that similar detailed studies have been caried out with birds. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] note that it is still not known how much polarisation is required to attract birds; such data is required to identify the required changes to PV facilities to reduce the effects of polarised light pollution for bird species.

3.3. Studies that have quantified mortalities of volant species Monitoring mortalities is an important tool for understanding the reasons for fatalities. Variation in where, when and how mortality monitoring has been carried out are informative about the causes of death.

3.3.1. Differences between sites – it matters where you monitor First, mortality monitoring results can be strongly influenced by where the surveys are carried out. A comprehensive Bird and Bat Management Plan developed for the Ivanpah CSP (initially written in 2013, latest version: [98]) was developed to document mortalities, use that information to develop and implement adaptive management responses, and report the monitoring results. Over nine years of bird and bat mortality monitoring using sniffer dogs and on-foot surveys (Table 4 and references therein), an average of 616 ± 360 (SD) birds per annum were recovered injured or dead around the facility. The timing of mortalities indicates strong seasonal patterns, peaking in spring and autumn, with migratory warblers and swallows making up 46–59 % of the identified cases.

A subset of the banks of heliostats were monitored over the first four years, but this monitoring was not continued. This change in where monitoring has been carried out has confounded interpretation of which species are impacted by the facility. The highest density of mortalities has been around the concentrating towers, which account for 30.6–98.5 % of reported mortalities. Waterbird mortalities were more likely to be recorded when more of the heliostat area was surveyed (Fig. 6). When only the towers were surveyed for mortalities, small insectivores (warblers and aerial foraging birds) represented the dominant records for mortalities. Finally, some mortalities (e.g., Greater roadrunner) have been specifically associated with the fencelines around the facility, and it is not clear whether the fences were systematically searched each year.

The change in where monitoring was carried out has also confounded interpretation of cause of death data. Mortalities at Ivanpah have included burn injuries (evident from singed feathers), collision (evident from broken bones), and other causes (e.g. entrapment or occurrence in the air-cooled condenser buildings, electrocution, vehicle strike, and predation), with a shift towards burn injuries as the surveys have altered their focus to only recording mortalities at the towers (mortalities from other parts of the facility were only recorded as incidental records) (Fig. 7). In the most recent reports, close to three quarters of the bird mortalities showed evidence of feather singeing (Table 4).

In a meta-analysis across different solar facilities [7], where mortalities were standardised on an energy-generation basis, the gen-tie has been identified as the most dangerous project feature to birds at some projects (i.e., risk of electrocution), whereas the solar collectors — PV panels or mirrors (i.e., risk of collision) — were the most dangerous at others [7]. On a project-wide basis, however, more birds died by collision with solar collectors [7].

Comparison between avian use surveys and mortalities can serve to identify which species are most at risk from solar facilities. For example, analysis of data presented by WEST [33] (their Table 2a and Table 7) indicated disproportionate mortalities for the Greater roadrunner, Mourning dove Zenaida macroura, and some of the sparrows and warbler species in the year of survey (Fig. 4). There were also marked differences between some of the bird guilds, with waterbirds representing only 0.9 % of avian use counts, but 3.8 % the fatalities. Similarly, aerial foragers (use: 2.1 %, mortalities 8.4 %) and raptors (use: 1.0 %, mortalities: 4.4 %) were disproportionately represented in the mortality counts.

3.3.2. It matters when you monitor
Mortality monitoring results can also be strongly influenced by when surveys are carried out. For example, mortality monitoring results can be biased low by insufficient monitoring duration [7]. Daily mortality monitoring at Ivanpah was compared with the timing of biologically relevant seasons, using the timing of migration determined through sightings reported via eBird website (www.ebird.org) and radar data from over 140 weather stations (synthesised on the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s BirdCast website; www.birdcast.info) [33]. The comparison was used to confirm that the entire spring and fall migration periods – when the majority of bird passages through the solar facilities were expected and also the majority of mortalities were recorded – had been included in their monitoring period. This study is an excellent example of ensuring an adequate monitoring period is addressed.

3.3.3. It matters how you monitor
The method of survey can also influence results for mortality monitoring. For example, Smallwood [7] reported bird fatality rates averaged 3 times higher at PV projects searched by foot rather than car.

There is also significant bias in species’ deaths reported. Many mortalities are assessed from feather-spots only, which significantly compromises identification of both species and cause of death. It is estimated that an average of 22 % of fatalities at solar facilities are unable to be identified to species using morphological methods [7]. The application of eDNA methods to identify bird species mortalities has recently been trialled, showing 84.1 % alignment with carcasses identified via traditional morphological methods [106]. eDNA methods may therefore help to reduce the proportion of unidentifiable mortalities for future monitoring.

Finally, mortality estimates require appropriate adjustment for scavenging, searcher efficiency, and the effect of body size on carcass detectability (many carcass removal trials have used larger birds than P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 11 268
the species that they are adjusting these values to) [7]. In a review of mortality reporting across 14 facilities in California USA [reports performed between 1982 and 2018 and obtained under California Public Records Act (PRA) and federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests], Smallwood [7] reported an annual statewide fatality estimate of 37,546 birds and 207 bats projected to California’s 2020 installed capacity of 1948.8 MW of CSP and 12,220 MW of PV systems (14,168.8 MW total). However, these estimates were biased toward identification of large bird and bat species. ‘Bridging’ these data to the species composition of adjacent habitat, Smallwood [7] estimated fatalities of 267,732 birds and 11,418 bats (Table 1). Extrapolating from these values to the total installed solar energy capacity globally [6,7], and assuming that only 1 % of this is represented by CSP solar [107] (but see [25]), mortalities at solar facilities around the globe are estimated to total 17.3 million birds per annum. Geographic bias in the mortality figures means that these data could be vastly different for mesic habitats.

4. Unanswered questions and research needs
Lovich and Ennen [19] recognised many areas where there was missing data around the wildlife impacts of utility scale solar facilities.

Despite a decade of science since their publication, there are still many knowledge gaps, especially in regard to the specific landscapes in which solar facilities are being developed. For example:
• There has been insufficient empirical data collected on the biodiversity impacts of solar facilities. Most of the knowledge on PV impacts comes from North American contexts (48 % of studies reviewed) for desert biomes [21], limiting generalisation of these findings to other environments like farmland, where most of the PV capacity is sited. We need further before-and-after studies collecting data for birds and bats across a range of habitats.
• Mapping and quantifying ecological and polarised light pollution impacts for solar facilities in different locations and with respect to migratory pathways for birds and bats will inform potential risks. A large proportion of migratory bird species (80 %) migrate under the cover of darkness [108], when light polarisation is minimal, raising questions about their navigation cues. In addition to celestial and magnetic sources of information, there is evidence that animals can use polarisation of moonlight to navigate [109]. Diehl, Robertson and Kosciuch [14] note that bird fatalities at solar facilities could not be attributed to a particular time of day, but Kosciuch et al. [82] noted the absence of large-scale mortality events of nocturnal migrants at PV facilities. Presumably all bat mortality events are taking place at night.

Table 4
Summaries of Annual Reports for Ivanpah bird mortality monitoring.

Year % heliostat area
surveyed
Mortalities recorded
(% at towersb
)
Causes of mortalitiesb Small unident.
birds
Warblers &
swallows / swiftse
Waterbirds Ref.

Singed
feathers
Collision Other Unident.
2013–2014 24.1 % a 703 (30.6 %) 47.4 % 51.9 % 0.7 %c 57.4 % 8 % 29 % 4.1 % [30] 2014–2015 24.1 % 1070 (60.3 %) 41.3 % 10.3 % 1.3 %d 47.9 % 6 % 26 % 2.1 % [33] 2015–2016 8 % 706 (88.5 %) 64.4 % 5.1 % 1.1 %c 29.3 % 10 % 43 % 4.4 % [99] 2016–2017 (~4 %) 499 (96.2 %) 69.7 % 4.4 % 1.4 %c 24.4 % 7 % 43 % 3.2 % [100] 2017–2018 0 % 531 (97.7 %) 76.9 % 0.8 % 1.7 %c 20.6 % 8 % 53 % 1.1 % [101] 2018–2019 0 % 358 (97.2 %) 65.2 % 2.3 % 1.4 %c 31.0 % 14 % 45 % 2.8 % [102] 2019–2020 0 % 737 (98.5 %) 61.3 % 1.9 % 2.3 %c 34.6 % 6 % 48 % 2.4 % [103] 2020–2021 0 % 296 (98.3 %) 72.5 % 1.4 % 2.7 %c 23.4 % 8 % 59 % 0.3 % [104] 2021–2022 0 % 265 (97.7 %) 71.8 % 0 % 1.9 %c 26.3 % 7 % 46 % 0.8 % [105] a Plus fenceline surveyed.
b Heliostat area surveyed varied between annual surveys; only incidental mortalities were recorded after spring 2016. The proportion of mortalities at the tower are therefore not directly comparable with subsequent years. From 2017 to 2018 onwards, only percentages as a proportion of the tower mortalities are reported. c Entrapment.
d Including electrocuted, struck by vehicle and predated. e Calculated from raw data presented as a percentage of identified mortalities. This represents a minimum for these insectivores, as the large percentage of small unidentified birds could also be within this category.

Fig. 6. Differences in waterbird and small insectivore mortality records according to distribution of monitoring surveys. Over the last 9 years, there has been a shift towards recording less of the heliostat area for bird mortalities.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 12 269
• The scale of land surface under solar panels is increasing rapidly.

This raises a question about the cumulative landscape impacts of solar facilities [110], and whether large numbers of dispersed, or smaller numbers of concentrated, facilities are likely to have the greatest impact? Understanding animal movements is required to address this question and maximise solar energy generation benefits while minimising negative effects on wildlife [19].
• Other indirect effects of solar facilities also need consideration. For example, water consumption as part of operations is an important consideration, especially for solar facilities sited in arid landscapes [19]. Additionally, any system that produces electricity and heat increases risk of wildfire [111].
• Finally, the decommissioning and recycling of solar panels at their end of life also needs to be accounted for in consideration of total environmental impact [112]. Solar panels have an average lifespan of 20–30 years [20]. They contain potential contaminants (e.g., for example lead, aluminium, arsenic, cadmium and copper, depending on the type of panel) that need appropriate disposal or recycling [62].

5. Conclusions
In this study, we describe five key mechanisms to explain attraction to or avoidance of solar facilities by insects, birds and bats (Table 5).

Habitat loss, fragmentation, and the disruption of animal movement is inevitably detrimental for fauna. However, other aspects of solar facilities can be attractive to some animals. For example, solar facilities may offer additional foraging and scavenging opportunities, while the presence of water (evaporation ponds) or the appearance of water (the ‘Lake Effect’) can mislead and lure animals to entrapment. While some of these opportunities are likely to be benign, other aspects have potentially lethal consequences for birds and bats, increasing risk of collision or burn injuries, as well as exposure to toxic chemicals. For such species, Fig. 7. Causes of mortality identified at Ivanpah CSP over 9 years of monitoring. Over time, there has been a move away from monitoring the heliostats (percentages under x-axis).

Table 5
Summary of the five broad mechanisms to explain attraction or avoidance of solar facilities by insects, birds and bats, and the potential ecological costs associated with each of these mechanisms. Example references supporting these points are indicated.

Potential mechanisms: Costs:

1. Lost, altered, and novel habitat • Loss and fragmentation of habitat [9,15,19,45] • Barrier effect of solar panels and fencing [3,15,16]
• Microhabitat changes [48]
• Altered temperature (‘Heat Island Effect, or ‘Cool Island Effect’) and soil moisture [49–52]
• Modified soil microbiome [51,53] and plant growth [9,51–56] • Creation of novel habitats alter behaviour e.g., perching and nesting sites, reflective surfaces [12,16,34]
• Loss of habitat and population connectivity
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28]
• Increased risk of entrapment [3]

2. Evaporation ponds • Attracts waterbirds [19,20,65] • Entrapment and drowning [3,16,34] • Exposure to toxic chemicals [63–65]

3. Increased foraging opportunities • Plant growth, flowering, and seed set can increase insect activity [8,9, 32]
• Insect presence attracts insectivores [3,68]
• Carcasses can attract scavengers [3,18,33,57,58]
• Altered food webs and altered species
communities [11,13,16,33]
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28]
• Increased predation risk [3,33]

4. Concentrated solar energy • Attracts insects [3,67] and insectivores feeding on these insects [3,68] • Burn risk for animals flying through the solar flux [3,28]
• Glint and glare blinding [7,34]
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [3,28]

5. Solar panels represent large expanses of
smooth, flat surfaces
• Solar panels polarise light [14] and mimic water surfaces ‘Lake Effect’ [3,14]
• Attract diurnal aquatic insects [68,69,76]
• Waterbirds alter flight paths [14]
• Bats may attempt to drink [85]
• Reflective surfaces can elicit aggressive behavioural responses [7] • Clutter confuses echolocating bats [36,37]
• Increased risk of collision and injuries [14,86]
• Stranding [3,59,82]
• Diversion from flight paths [14]
• Wasted reproductive effort [68,69,76]
P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 13 270
solar facilities can therefore act as environmental traps.

While mortality rates of birds at solar power plants have been substantial, this needs to be considered in context of other threats. Climate change is taking a significant toll on long-term survival of wildlife – e.g. through megafires and hurricanes; harmful algal outbreaks; habitat loss; and the spread of disease, pests, and invasive species [5] – and as such, there are dire costs to wildlife of not making the transition to sustainable energy sources. Deaths recorded at solar facilities have also been reported to be significantly lower compared to other anthropogenic landscapes and objects such as highways, buildings, or traditional energy sources [4,31,82]. For example, Walston Jr et al. [4] compared published mortality data for three solar facilities against other anthropogenic causes of avian mortality, and concluded that estimated annual avian mortality at solar facilities was far less than predicted from wind energy, fossil fuel power plants, communication towers, roadway vehicles, or bird strike at buildings and windows. Even the loss of habitat due to solar facilities has been identified as secondary to other anthropogenic changes, such as urbanisation [113], and the biodiversity costs of solar facilities need to be balanced out with the benefits of switching from fossil fuel to solar power generation.

However, despite these comparisons, it is still important to be cognisant that not all species are affected by solar facilities in the same way, and we need to monitor impacts appropriately to determine such effects.

Smallwood [7] makes a strong case for the need to account for bias in mortality estimates (e.g., carcass disappearance due to decomposition or removal by scavengers), and here I present data showing that the methods and location of monitoring also influences the interpretation of potential impacts (see Section 3.3, Fig. 7). We also need to understand the ecological and conservation significance of mortality impacts, which depends on quantifying implications of mortality on populations (i.e., size and trends) and life-history traits (e.g., pace of life and reproductive strategy) for threatened species [21]. For example, a recent study found that of 23 priority species colliding at wind and solar facilities, 11 (48 %) were vulnerable to population-level effects [114], especially non-local, nocturnal migrant species.

There is an urgent need to understand how ground-mounted solar farms affect biodiversity, as the exponential growth of this renewable energy source is resulting in large-scale land-use conversion throughout the world. At the end of 2023, an estimated 37,900 km2 of the earth’s surface was covered by solar facilities, which are likely to be killing an estimated total 17.3 million birds per annum. The vast expanses of solar panels as part of utility-scale solar facilities are a new type of anthropogenically transformed landscape. Understanding the potential risks to wildlife will help planning to ensure that we do not mitigate greenhouse gas at an avoidable cost to biodiversity conservation.

Credit author statement
Conceptualisation PAF; Data curation PAF; Investigation PAF; Roles/ Writing PAF.

Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:

Patricia A. Fleming reports financial support and article publishing charges were provided by Murdoch University. Patricia A. Fleming reports a relationship with Fortescue Ltd that includes: consulting or advisory and funding grants.

Acknowledgements
Murdoch University for salary and meeting publishing charges.

Damien Cancilla, Lazaro Roque-albelo and Todd Edwards (Fortescue Ltd.) for comments and financial support.

Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.

References
[1] Maka AOM, Ghalut T, Elsaye E. The pathway toward decarbonisation and netzero emissions by 2050: the role of solar energy technology. Green Technologies and Sustainability 2024;2:100107.
[2] Hernandez RR, Easter S, Murphy-Mariscal ML, Maestre FT, Tavassoli M, Allen EB, et al. Environmental impacts of utility-scale solar energy. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews 2014;29:766–79.
[3] Kagan RA, Viner TC, Trail PW, Espinoza EO. Avian mortality at solar energy facilities in southern California: a preliminary analysis. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory 2014;28:1–28.
[4] Walston Jr LJ, Rollins KE, LaGory KE, Smith KP, Meyers SA. A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States. Renew Energy 2016;92:405–14.
[5] Brennan B, Murphy J, DeGennaro D. A guide to responsible development of wind and solar resources on public lands and waters. Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation; 2023.
[6] Energy Institute. Statistical review of World Energy Data. 2024. https://www. energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads. [7] Smallwood KS. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. J Wildl Manag 2022; 86:e22216.
[8] Montag H, Parker G, Clarkson T. The effects of solar farms on local biodiversity: a comparative study. Clarkson and Woods and Wychwood Biodiversity. 2016. [9] Graham M, Ates S, Melathopoulos AP, Moldenke AR, DeBano SJ, Best LR, Higgins CW. Partial shading by solar panels delays bloom, increases floral abundance during the late-season for pollinators in a dryland, agrivoltaic ecosystem. Sci Rep 2021;11:1–13.
[10] DeVault TL, Seamans TW, Schmidt JA, Belant JL, Blackwell BF, Mooers N, et al.

Bird use of solar photovoltaic installations at US airports: implications for aviation safety. Landsc Urban Plann 2014;122:122–8.
[11] Copping JP, Waite CE, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Field RH, Morris I, Finch T.

Solar farm management influences breeding bird responses in an arabledominated landscape. Bird Study 2025:1–6. [12] Golawski A, Mitrus C, Jankowiak Ł. Increased bird diversity around small-scale solar energy plants in agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2025;379:
109361.
[13] Szabadi KL, Kurali A, Rahman NAA, Froidevaux JSP, Tinsley E, Jones G, et al. The use of solar farms by bats in mosaic landscapes: implications for conservation.

Global Ecology and Conservation 2023;44:e02481.
[14] Diehl R, Robertson B, Kosciuch K. Investigating the “Lake Effect” influence on avian behavior from California’s utility-scale photovoltaic solar facilities. Energy research and development Division. California Energy Commission; 2024. Final Project Report.
[15] Kaplan G. Human-caused high direct mortality in birds: Unsustainable trends and ameliorative actions. Animals 2024;15:73.
[16] Visser E, Perold V, Ralston-Paton S, Cardenal AC, Ryan PG. Assessing the impacts of a utility-scale photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Renew Energy 2019;133:1285–94.
[17] Jarˇcuˇska B, G´alffyov´a M, Schnürmacher R, Bala´ˇz M, Miˇsík M, Repel M, et al. Solar parks can enhance bird diversity in agricultural landscape. J Environ Manag 2024;351:119902.
[18] Karban CC, Lovich JE, Grodsky SM, Munson SM. Predicting the effects of solar energy development on plants and wildlife in the Desert Southwest, United States.

Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2024;205:114823.
[19] Lovich JE, Ennen JR. Wildlife conservation and solar energy development in the desert southwest, United States. Bioscience 2011;61:982–92. [20] Anderson CM, Hopkins AP, Anderson JT. Assessing the impact of solar farms on waterbirds: a literature review of ecological interactions and habitat alterations.

Conservation 2025;5:4.
[21] Gomez-Catasús J, Morales MB, Giralt D, del Portillo DG, Manzano-Rubio R, Sol ´ ´eBujalance L, et al. Solar photovoltaic energy development and biodiversity conservation: current knowledge and research gaps. Conserv Lett 2024;17:
e13025.
[22] Rudman J, Gauch´e P, Esler KJ. Direct environmental impacts of solar power in two arid biomes: an initial investigation. South Afr J Sci 2017;113:1–13. [23] World Bank Group. World - photovoltaic power potential (PVOUT) GIS data.

Global Solar Atlas) 2024. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/ 0038641.
[24] Global Energy Monitor. Global solar power tracker, global energy monitor and TransitionZero. February 2025 release. 2025. https://globalenergymonitor.or g/projects/global-solar-power-tracker/download-data/.
[25] Lilliestam J, Ollier L, Labordena M, Pfenninger S, Thonig R. The near-to mid-term outlook for concentrating solar power: mostly cloudy, chance of sun. Energy Sources B Energy Econ Plann 2021;16:23–41.
[26] Roser M. Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?. 2020. Published online at OurWorldinDataorg Retrieved from: https://ourworldindataorg/cheap-renewabl es-growth [Online Resource]. Global Change Data Lab, UK: Our World in Data. [27] IEA. Solar PV; latest findings. International Energy Agency (IEA); 2020. [28] McCrary MD, McKernan RL, Schreiber RW, Wagner WD, Sciarrotta TC. Avian mortality at a solar energy power plant. J Field Ornithol 1986;57:135–41.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 14 271
[29] Bechtel. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System. California, USA. Reston, Verginia, USA: Bechtel Corporation; 2024.
[30] Harvey HT, Associates. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan 2013-2014 Annual Report (Revised). Fresno. 2015. California:

Report Number TN#204258, 07-AFC-05C.
[31] Ho CK. Review of avian mortality studies at concentrating solar power plants. In:

AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Publishing; 2016.
[32] Blaydes H, Potts SG, Whyatt JD, Armstrong A. Opportunities to enhance pollinator biodiversity in solar parks. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;145:
111065.
[33] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan.

June. Nipton, California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2016. 2014-2015 Annual Report and Two Year Comparison. Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and vol. III.
[34] Jeal C, Perold V, Ralston-Paton S, Ryan PG. Impacts of a concentrated solar power trough facility on birds and other wildlife in South Africa. Ostrich 2019;90:
129–37.
[35] Kitazawa M, Yamaura Y, Senzaki M, Kawamura K, Hanioka M, Nakamura F. An evaluation of five agricultural habitat types for openland birds: abandoned farmland can have comparative values to undisturbed wetland. Ornithol Sci 2019;18:3–16.
[36] Tinsley E, Froidevaux JSP, Zsebok S, Szabadi KL, Jones G. Renewable energies ˝ and biodiversity: impact of ground-mounted solar photovoltaic sites on bat activity. J Appl Ecol 2023;60:1752–62.
[37] Barr´e K, Baudouin A, Froidevaux JSP, Chartendrault V, Kerbiriou C. Insectivorous bats alter their flight and feeding behaviour at ground-mounted solar farms.

J Appl Ecol 2024;61:328–39.
[38] Valera F, Sˇalek M, Bolonio L, V ´ ´aclav R. Comment on “Solar parks can enhance bird diversity in agricultural landscape” by Jarˇcuˇska et al. J Environ Manag 2024; 366:121781.
[39] Smith JP, Lenihan CM, Zirpoli JA. Golden Eagle breeding response to utility-scale solar development and prolonged drought in California. J Raptor Res 2020;54:
154–65.
[40] Zaplata MK, Dullau S. Applying ecological succession theory to birds in solar parks: an approach to address protection and planning. Land 2022;11:718. [41] Tsafack N, Fang W, Wang X, Xie Y, Wang X, Fattorini S. Influence of grazing and solar panel installation on tenebrionid beetles (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae) of a central Asian steppe. J Environ Manag 2022;320:115791.
[42] Suuronen A, Munoz-Escobar C, Lensu A, Kuitunen M, Guajardo Celis N, ˜ Espinoza Astudillo P, et al. The influence of solar power plants on microclimatic conditions and the biotic community in Chilean desert environments. Environ Manag 2017;60:630–42.
[43] Wikipedia. List of photovoltaic power stations Wikimedia Foundation. Inc.; 2025. a non-profit organization.
[44] Gaughan R. How much land is needed for wind turbines?. 2022. [45] Saul-Gershenz L, Kimsey L, Williams NM, Zavortink T, Thorp R, Davis CA, et al.

Characterization of the impact on native bees from utility scale solar development in the desert (BLM Grant 2015-2016). 2018.
[46] Tinsley E, Froidevaux JSP, Jones G. The location of solar farms within England’s ecological landscape: implications for biodiversity conservation. J Environ Manag 2024;372:123372.
[47] Valera F, Bolonio L, La Calle A, Moreno E. Deployment of solar energy at the expense of conservation sensitive areas precludes its classification as an environmentally sustainable activity. Land 2022;11:2330. [48] Wynne-Sison T, Devitt DA, Smith SD. Ecovoltaics: maintaining native plants and wash connectivity inside a Mojave Desert solar facility leads to favorable growing conditions. Land 2023;12:1950.
[49] Barron-Gafford GA, Minor RL, Allen NA, Cronin AD, Brooks AE, PavaoZuckerman MA. The Photovoltaic Heat Island Effect: larger solar power plants increase local temperatures. Sci Rep 2016;6:35070.
[50] Guoqing L, Hernandez RR, Blackburn GA, Davies G, Hunt M, Whyatt JD, Armstrong A. Ground-mounted photovoltaic solar parks promote land surface cool islands in arid ecosystems. Renew Sustain Energy Transit 2021;1:100008. [51] Lambert Q, Bischoff A, Gros R. Effects of habitat restoration and solar panels on soil properties and functions in solar parks. Appl Soil Ecol 2024;203:105614. [52] Martin JC. Ecosystem enriching and efficient solar energy facilities: exploring the effects of pollinator-friendly solar facilities on ecological function and solar panel efficiency [MSc]. The College of William and Mary; 2022. [53] Adeh EH, Selker JS, Higgins CW. Remarkable agrivoltaic influence on soil moisture, micrometeorology and water-use efficiency. PLoS One 2018;13:
e0203256.
[54] Uldrijan D, Cerný M, Winkler J. Solar park: opportunity or threat for vegetation ˇ and ecosystem. Journal of Ecological Engineering 2022;23:1–10. [55] Tanner K, Moore K, Pavlik B. Measuring impacts of solar development on desert plants. Fremontia 2014;42:15–6.
[56] Tanner KE, Moore-O’Leary KA, Parker IM, Pavlik BM, Hernandez RR. Simulated solar panels create altered microhabitats in desert landforms. Ecosphere 2020;11:
e03089.
[57] Cypher BL, Boroski BB, Burton RK, Meade DE, Phillips SE, Leitner P, et al.

Photovoltaic solar farms in California: can we have renewable electricity and our species, too. California Fish and Wildlife 2021;107:231–48. [58] Visser E. The impact of South Africa’s largest photovoltaic solar energy facility on birds in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town; 2016.
[59] Kosciuch K, Riser-Espinoza D, Moqtaderi C, Erickson W. Aquatic habitat bird occurrences at photovoltaic solar energy development in Southern California, USA. Diversity 2021;13:524.
[60] Riker S. Wildlife-friendly solar energy in the Mojave desert. Case study by the conservation and Adaptation resources Toolbox (CART). 2019. [61] Vargas-Bernal R. Nanocoatings for energy generation and conservation of solar cells. Sustainable approach to protective nanocoatings. IGI Global 2024:88–112. [62] Tammaro M, Salluzzo A, Rimauro J, Schiavo S, Manzo S. Experimental investigation to evaluate the potential environmental hazards of photovoltaic panels. J Hazard Mater 2016;306:395–405.
[63] Herbst DB. Salinity controls on trophic interactions among invertebrates and algae of solar evaporation ponds in the Mojave Desert and relation to shorebird foraging and selenium risk. Wetlands 2006;26:475–85.
[64] Tan LC, Nancharaiah YV, van Hullebusch ED, Lens PNL. Selenium: environmental significance, pollution, and biological treatment technologies. Biotechnol Adv 2016;34:886–907.
[65] Spallholz JE, Hoffman DJ. Selenium toxicity: cause and effects in aquatic birds.

Aquat Toxicol 2002;57:27–37.
[66] Nemtzov SC, Olsvig-Whittaker L. The use of netting over fishponds as a hazard to waterbirds. Waterbirds 2003;26:416–23.
[67] Diehl RH, Valdez EW, Preston TM, Wellik MJ, Cryan PM. Evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife detection and observation technologies at a solar power tower facility. PLoS One 2016;11:e0158115.
[68] Horvath G, Kriska G, Malik P, Robertson B. Polarized light pollution: a new kind ´ of ecological photopollution. Front Ecol Environ 2009;7:317–25. [69] Horvath G, Blah ´ o M, Egri ´ A, Kriska G, Seres I, Robertson B. Reducing the ´ maladaptive attractiveness of solar panels to polarotactic insects. Conserv Biol 2010;24:1644–53.
[70] Jenkins AR, Ralston-Paton S, Smit-Robinson HA. Birds and solar energy best practice guidelines; Best Practice Guidelines for assessing and monitoring the impact of solar energy facilities on birds in southern Africa. South Africa: BirdLife South Africa2015.
[71] Ho CK, Sims CA, Yellowhair J, Wendelin T. Tools to address glare and avian flux hazards from solar energy systems. Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA: Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM); 2018.
[72] Mostafa MF, Aleem SHEA, Zobaa AF. Risk assessment and possible mitigation solutions for using solar photovoltaic at airports. 2016 eighteenth international middle east power systems conference (MEPCON). IEEE; 2016. p. 81–8. [73] Sreenath S, Sudhakar K, Yusop AF, Cuce E, Solomin E. Analysis of solar PV glare in airport environment: potential solutions. Results Eng 2020;5:100079. [74] Wang H, Guo L, Soares L. Energy Harvesting on New Jersey roadways. New Jersey: Department of Transportation. Bureau of Research; 2023. [75] Wehner R. Polarization vision–a uniform sensory capacity? J Exp Biol 2001;204:
2589–96.
[76] Kriska G, Malik P, Sziv´ak I, Horv´ath G. Glass buildings on river banks as “polarized light traps” for mass-swarming polarotactic caddis flies.

Naturwissenschaften 2008;95:461–7.
[77] Upton J. Solar farms threaten birds. Sci. Am. 2014;27:717–46. [78] Åkesson S. Polarization vision in birds. In: Horvath G, editor. Polarization vision ´ and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed.

Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 299–306.
[79] Bernath B, Szedenics G, Moln ´ ´ar G, Kriska G, Horvath G. Visual ecological impact ´ of a peculiar waste oil lake on the avifauna: dual-choice field experiments with water-seeking birds using huge shiny black and white plastic sheets. Arch Nat Conserv Landsc Res 2001;40:1–28.
[80] Able KP. Skylight polarization patterns and the orientation of migratory birds.

J Exp Biol 1989;141:241–56.
[81] Tak´acs P, Szaz D, Bern ´ ath B, Pomozi I, Horv ´ ath G. Polarized light pollution of ´ fixed-tilt photovoltaic solar panels measured by drone-polarimetry and its visualecological importance. Remote Sens 2024;16:1177. [82] Kosciuch K, Riser-Espinoza D, Gerringer M, Erickson W. A summary of bird mortality at photovoltaic utility scale solar facilities in the Southwestern US. PLoS One 2020;15:e0232034.
[83] Greif S, Siemers BM. Innate recognition of water bodies in echolocating bats. Nat Commun 2010;1:107.
[84] Russo D, Cistrone L, Jones G. Sensory ecology of water detection by bats: a field experiment. PLoS One 2012;7:e48144.
[85] Horvath G. Polarization Sensitivity and insensitivity in bats. In: Horv ´ ´ath G, editor.

Polarization vision and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed. Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 307–12. [86] Kuczek AB. Avian attractiveness to vertically polarized light. Annandale-onHudson. New York: Bard College Senior Projects Spring Thesis; 2021. p. 205. [87] Hager SB, Craig ME. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season.

PeerJ 2014;2:e460.
[88] Kahle LQ, Flannery ME, Dumbacher JP. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS One 2016;11:e0144600.
[89] Greif S, Zsebok S, Schmieder D, Siemers BM. Acoustic mirrors as sensory traps for ˝ bats. Science 2017;357:1045–7.
[90] Ingeme Y, Bush A, Lumsden L, van Harten E, Bourne S, Reardon T. Hit or miss could mean life or death for juvenile southern bent-wing bats. Australasian Bat Society 2018;50:59.
[91] Salata F, Dell’Olmo J, Ciancio V. Agri-voltaics near airport facilities. Reconciling the risk of solar glare with power generation. Sol Energy 2024;275:112653. [92] Kandt A, Romero R. Siting solar photovoltaics at airports. Solar 2014. San Francisco, California: National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL); 2014.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 15 272
[93] Szaz D, Mih ´ alyi D, Farkas A, Egri ´ A, Barta A, Kriska G, et al. Polarized light ´ pollution of matte solar panels: anti-reflective photovoltaics reduce polarized light pollution but benefit only some aquatic insects. J Insect Conserv 2016;20:
663–75.
[94] Shanmugam N, Pugazhendhi R, Madurai Elavarasan R, Kasiviswanathan P, Das N.

Anti-reflective coating materials: a holistic review from PV perspective. Energies 2020;13:2631.
[95] Horv´ath G. Polarized light pollution and ecological/evolutionary traps Induced by it for polarotactic aquatic insects. In: Horvath G, editor. Polarization vision ´ and environmental polarized light. Springer Series in vision research. third ed.

Switzerland: Springer; 2024. p. 477–560.
[96] Black TV, Robertson BA. How to disguise evolutionary traps created by solar panels. J Insect Conserv 2020;24:241–7.
[97] Abdul Rahman NA, Firtha G, Szabadi KL, Jones G, Zsebok S. Mitigating the ˝ deceptive effects of smooth surfaces: subtle surface modifications can eliminate maladaptive drinking attempts by bats. Anim Conserv 2024;27:788–801. [98] Abmmp Ivanpah. Avian & bat monitoring and management plan. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Revision 2020;14.
[99] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2015-2016 annual report. Prepared for solar partners I, II, and VIII. July. . Nipton.

California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2017. [100] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2016-2017 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. January.

Nipton, California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2018. [101] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating S. Ystem avian & bat monitoring plan.

Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2019. 2017-2018 Annual Report.

Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and VIII. January Nipton, California. [102] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2018-2019 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. Nipton.

California: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2020. [103] WEST. Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Avian & Bat Monitoring Plan. 2019-2020 annual report. Prepared for solar Partners I, II, and VIII. Cheyenne.

Woyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2021. [104] WEST. Ivanpah solar electric generating system avian & bat monitoring plan. 2020–2021 annual report. Year 8. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology Inc.; 2022.
[105] WEST. Ivanpah solar electric generating system avian & bat monitoring plan. 2020-2021 annual report. Year 8. Prepared for Solar Partners I, II, and VIII.

Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST); 2023. [106] Gruppi C, Sanzenbacher P, Balekjian K, Hagar R, Hagen S, Rayne C, et al. Genetic identification of avian samples recovered from solar energy installations. PLoS One 2023;18:e0289949.
[107] Hamed TA, Alshare A. Environmental impact of solar and wind energy-a review.

Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 2022;10:1–23.
[108] Horton KG, Nilsson C, Van Doren BM, La Sorte FA, Dokter AM, Farnsworth A.

Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Front Ecol Environ 2019;17:209–14.
[109] Dacke M, Nilsson D-E, Scholtz CH, Byrne M, Warrant EJ. Insect orientation to polarized moonlight. Nature 2003;424:33.
[110] Moore-O’Leary KA, Hernandez RR, Johnston DS, Abella SR, Tanner KE, Swanson AC, et al. Sustainability of utility-scale solar energy–critical ecological concepts. Front Ecol Environ 2017;15:385–94.
[111] Vaverkov´a MD, Winkler J, Uldrijan D, Ogrodnik P, Vespalcov´a T, AleksiejukGawron J, et al. Fire hazard associated with different types of photovoltaic power plants: effect of vegetation management. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;162:
112491.
[112] Toussaint DC. Chiropteran specialist report for phase 3 of the proposed soventixsolar Africa solar PV facility. Hanover, Northern Cape. 2022. [113] McCoshum SM, Geber MA. Land conversion for solar facilities and urban sprawl in southwest deserts causes different amounts of habitat loss for Ashmeadiella bees. J Kans Entomol Soc 2020;92:468–78.
[114] Conkling TJ, Vander Zanden HB, Allison TD, Diffendorfer JE, Dietsch TV, Duerr AE, et al. Vulnerability of avian populations to renewable energy production. R Soc Open Sci 2022;9:211558.

P.A. Fleming Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 224 (2025) 115995 16 273
Design 2026- Reduction (MS550) Hellman Solar Field, 711 1st st., Seal Beach, CA 90740 Design Design 2026- Reduction (MS550)
DC Nameplate 1.12 MW
AC Nameplate 1,000.00 kW (1.12 DC/AC)
Last Modied James Reeve (Today at 12:22 AM)
 Design
 Project Location
Component Name Count
Inverters CPS SCA100KTL-DO/US-480 (Chint Power Systems) 10 (1,000.00 kW) Strings 10 AWG (Copper) 80 (10,305.3 ft)
Module Mission Solar, MSI10-550HT4T (550W) 2,028 (1.12 MW)  Components
Description Racking Orientation Tilt Azimuth Intrarow
Spacing
Frame
Size Frames Modules Power
Field
Segment 3
Fixed
Tilt
Portrait
(Vertical)
Module:
15°
Module:
180°

8.0 ft 2x1 494 988 543.40
kW
Field
Segment 2
Fixed
Tilt
Portrait
(Vertical)
Module:
15°
Module:
180°

8.0 ft 2x1 520 1,040 572.00
kW
 Field Segments
Description Combiner Poles String Size Stringing Strategy Wiring Zone - 22-28 Along Racking
Wiring Zone 2 - 22-28 Along Racking
 Wiring Zones
Design Overview produced by James Reeve
© 2026 Aurora Solar 1 / 2 January 24, 2026
 Detailed Layout2
Design Overview produced by James Reeve
© 2026 Aurora Solar 2 / 2 January 24, 2026
City Council
2/23/2026
Hellman Ranch Solar Project
Site Location
Original Proposed Solar PV Footprint
Original Proposed Solar PV Footprint
Revised Proposed Solar PV Footprint
Revised Proposed Solar PV Footprint
City Council
2/23/2026
Final Slide