Thousand Oaks City Council
October 21, 2025

CDD:\460-20\cj\H:\COMMON\Forms_App's_Handouts_Templates\Planning\Planning Applications and Documents\Appeal PC Decision.doc 7/2006
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard & Thousand Oaks, California 91362-2903 & (805) 449-2100 Printed on recycled paper.

AP

PLICATION FOR APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL

OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPELLANT INFORMATION*:

Name (person):

Company/Organization (if applicable):

Address:

City/State/Zip:

Phone: ( ) Email:

If appellant is not the applicant, state the basis for filing this appeal as an “aggrieved person.” *NOTE: IF THE APPELLANT is a Corporation, the name, address and title of all Officers shall accompany this application. If the appellant is a General Partner, the name and address of all General Partners shall accompany this application.

PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:

Case #: Date of Decision:

Community Development Department Decision was to (check only one):  Approve application  Deny application
I REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTION:
(Check only one.)
 Approve the application subject to the conditions imposed by the Community Development D
epartment.
 Approve the application, but add, delete or change one or more conditions (please attach a separ
ate sheet with the specific condition changes you are requesting).  Deny the application.

ATTACHMENT #1
Brian Flynn
Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ('SAFER') 1939 Harrison St, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
510
836-4200
[email protected]
SAFER and it's members are living and working in and around the City of Thousand Oaks. 2022-70775-EIR
09/08/2025
■
✔
Application for Appeal to City Council of a Planning Commission Decision

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE:
(If appeal requests changes to conditions imposed by the Community Development Department, justify each change – attach additional pages if necessary.)

SIGNATURE OF APPELLANT:

Signature of Appellant Date

CERTIFICATION
(For Department Use Only)
The Community Development Department hereby certifies that the appeal and filing fee have been received as follow:

At (a.m./p.m.), on , 20 .

By (Staff Accepting Appeal) Filing Fee $
Name of Project Planner:

CDD:\460-20\cj\H:\COMMON\Forms_App's_Handouts_Templates\Planning\Planning Applications and Documents\Appeal PC Decision.doc (8/13)
SAFER is concerned that the DEIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the reasons set forth in the attached letter dated September 3, 2025. 09/10/2025
September 3, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Mic Farris, Chair
Marcella Tyler Ketelhut, Vice Chair
Kara Buss, Commissioner
Don Lanson, Commissioner
Sharon McMahon, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[email protected]
Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[email protected]
Re: SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Business Park
Environmental Impact Report 2022-70775-EIR
Planning Commission Agenda Item 7.A (Sept. 8, 2025)
To the Thousand Oaks Planning Commission and Planner Kolwitz:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in and around the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) regarding the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023020425) prepared for the Conejo Summit Project (“Project”) scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 7.A at the Planning Commission’s September 8, 2025 meeting.

Previously, on January 9, 2025, SAFER submitted a comment on the Draft EIR (“DEIR”) during the public review period (“January 9 Comment”). SAFER’s January 9 Comment raised concerns that the DEIR failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by failing to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts on biological resources and energy. For impacts to biological resources, SAFER’s review of the DEIR was assisted by expert ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. The January 9 Comment stated that Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV were attached as Exhibit A. However, inadvertently, the Exhibit A attached to the January 9 Comment was Dr. Smallwood’s report regarding the Project’s previous mitigated negative declaration from 2022, not his updated report on the EIR in 2025.

To fix this issue, SAFER’s January 9, 2025 Comment is attached as Attachment 1 with the correct report of Dr. Smallwood (dated January 4, 2025) attached thereto as Exhibit A.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
PC Agenda Item 7.A (Sept. 8, 2025)
September 3, 2025

For the reasons discussed in Attachment 1, SAFER respectfully requests that Planning Commission not approve the Project at this time and, instead, direct staff to revise and recirculate the EIR prior to further consideration of the Project.

Sincerely,

Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP

ATTACHMENT 1

January 9, 2025

VIA EMAIL

Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Thousand Oaks
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
[email protected]

Re: SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Business Park Draft EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 2023020425

To Senior Planner Kolwitz:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in and around the City of Thousand Oaks (“City”) regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2023020425) (“DEIR”) prepared for the Conejo Summit Project (“Project”) proposed by Thousand Oaks Master LLC.

SAFER is concerned the DEIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by: (1) failing to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts on biological resources and (2) failing to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts on energy. SAFER’s review of the Project and EIR was assisted by expert ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SAFER respectfully requests that City revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the concerns discussed below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project proposes multiple-phase business park development that would include 15 industrial buildings totaling 754,222 square feet (671,122 sf of warehouse/light manufacturing and 83,100 sf of office). The proposed buildings would range in size from approximately 22,700 to 93,300 sf of floor area and from 37 to 41 feet in height. The Project will also include 1,663 surface parking spaces.

The 51-arce Project site is located near the western boundary of the City within the SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

northwestern portion of the Rancho Conejo Industrial Area, approximately 1-mile north of the 101 Freeway. The Project site abuts the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area, which is owned and managed by the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency (COSCA). Construction of the Project would consist of a maximum of seven phases, with an anticipated construction period of 12 to 18 months for each phase, beginning in 2025 and ending in 2035.

LEGAL STANDARD
CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR (except in certain limited circumstances). (See, e.g., Pub. Resources Code, § 21100.) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).) CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(1).) “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (Berkeley Jets); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.)
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 CCR § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21081; 14 CCR § 15092(b)(2)(A), (B).)
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355 [quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 391, 409, n.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

12.) “A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs ‘if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.) An EIR must “include[] sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises.” (Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.) “Whether or not the alleged inadequacy is the complete omission of a required discussion or a patently inadequate one- paragraph discussion devoid of analysis, the reviewing court must decide whether the EIR serves its purpose as an informational document.” (Id. at 516.) “The determination whether a discussion is sufficient is not solely a matter of discerning whether there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s factual conclusions.” (Id.) As the Court emphasized:

[W]hether a description of an environmental impact is insufficient because it lacks analysis or omits the magnitude of the impact is not a substantial evidence question.

A conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can b e determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence.

(Id. at 514.)

In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. (14 CCR § 15370.) Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. (14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) A lead agency may not make the required CEQA findings unless the administrative record clearly shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of significant environmental impacts have been resolved.

DISCUSSION

III. DISCUSSION

A. The DEIR Fails to Disclose and Mitigate the Project’s Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.

Expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., found several deficiencies in the DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on wildlife. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A. As discussed below, Dr. Smallwood concluded: (1) the DEIR underestimates the diversity of species at and near the Project site; (2) the DEIR fails to assess or mitigate the Project’s impacts to species due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting; and (3) the DEIR’s mitigation measures are inadequate to reduce the Project’s impacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

1. The DEIR underestimates the diversity of species using the Project site.

Dr. Smallwood and his associate conducted three separate reconnaissance surveys of the Project site by walking the site’s perimeters where accessible and scanning for wildlife with binoculars. (Ex. A, pp. 1-2.) They detected 67 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 14 special-status species, including California gnatcatcher, red-tailed hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and oak titmouse. (Id., pp. 3-6.) Notably, they observed an additional 5 special-status species that were not seen during the surveys conducted for the DEIR’s biological report (“Dudek Report”). (Id., p.

19.)

Dr. Smallwood calculated that more thorough site visits would reveal an even greater diversity of wildlife. (Ex. A, pp. 15-18.) Given more time to survey the site, Dr. Smallwood’s predicts that he would have detected 138 species of vertebrate wildlife, 29 of which would be special-status species. (Id., p. 17.) Based on his review of the DEIR and the site visits, Dr.

Smallwood concluded, “[T]he large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.” (Id., p. 18.)

Additionally, the Dudek Report’s review of available wildlife databases was inadequate. (Ex. A, pp. 21-23.) The Dudek Report relied on the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) to determine which species have potential to occur in the Project area. (Id., p. 21.) By relying on only the nearest CNBBD quadrangles, Dudek “screens out many special-status species from further consideration in their characterization of the wildlife community.” (Id.) This is an improper use of CNDDB because “CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. (Id.)

Based on available databases (including CNDDB, iNaturalist, and eBird) and site visits, Dr. Smallwood found that “135 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential.” (Ex. A, p. 22.) However, the Dudek Report only analyzed the occurrence potential for 38 species (i.e. 28% of the species identified by Dr. Smallwood). (Id.) The faulty analysis in the Dudek Report results in unreliable conclusions about the Project site’s biological baseline, including that: (1) California gnatcatcher is not present on the site despite confirmed sightings on site; (2) the occurrence likelihoods, based on CNDDB records, of burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and mountain lion are low despite the confirmed sightings of the species near or adjacent to the site; and (3) monarch butterfly is not expected to occur on site despite records showing that monarchs have been observed as close as 620 meters from the site. (Id., pp. 22-24.)

Every EIR must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321; see 14 CCR § 15125(a). Due to the inadequate analysis on the Dudek Report, the DEIR underestimates the biological baseline at the Project site and, as a result, cannot provide substantial evidence about SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

the severity of the Project’s impacts on biological resources. As a result, the DEIR should be revised to properly disclose the biological baseline and the impacts of this Project.

2. The DEIR failed to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts on wildlife due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting.

Dr. Smallwood found that the DEIR failed to adequately discuss numerous significant impacts that the Project may have on biological resources due to habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting. (Ex. A, pp. 31-38.) By failing to disclose and mitigate these impacts, the DEIR is inadequate. The EIR must be revised to account for the impacts discussed below.

a. Habitat loss and fragmentation

Dr. Smallwood found that the DEIR downplays the impacts of habitat loss resulting from the Project by assuming that the adjacent Conejo Open Space Conservation Area would provide ample habitat. (Ex. A, p. 31.) As Dr. Smallwood explains,

The DEIR does not consider that habitat outside the project site is already occupied, and the project would reduce carrying capacities of the species affected. Carrying capacities prevent wildlife from existing at densities that would result from project refugees crowded into neighboring habitat. Ultimately, either the refugees or the animals in the receiving habitat would succumb to the breach of carrying capacity, and the numbers of each species would decline to the reduced carrying capacities resulting from the project.

(Id.) As a result of habitat loss and fragmentation, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the Project would result in a loss of 880 bird nests, which corresponds to an overall loss of 3,899 birds per year, which “would be both substantial and highly significant.” (Id., p. 32.) The DEIR should be revised and recirculated to disclose and mitigate this impact to the extent possible.

b. Wildlife Movement

Similar to the DEIR’s discussion of habitat loss, the DEIR assumes that the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area would minimize the Project’s impacts to wildlife movement. (DEIR, pp. 3.3-12, -33.) Dr. Smallwood found that the EIR applied an improper standard to analyze the Project’s impacts to wildlife movement. (Ex. A, p. 28.) However, as Dr. Smallwood explains,

There was no sampling regime or program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns, nor to quantify them or to qualitatively assess them. Based on what is reported, Dudek (2024) did not record or measure wildlife movement in SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

any way. The DEIR’s conclusions regarding wildlife movement on the project site are purely speculative and conclusory.

(Ex. A, p. 33.) The DEIR’s conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, not speculation.

As such, the DEIR should be revised to include a technical assessment of wildlife movement patterns through the Project site.

c. Traffic

The DEIR fails to address the impacts to wildlife from collisions with traffic generated by the Project. This omission is important because, as Dr. Smallwood explains,

Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

(Ex. A, p. 34.) According to the DEIR, the Project would result in 23,192 daily vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”), which amounts to 8,465,080 annual VMT. (Id, p. 26.) Based on the Project’s annual VMT, Dr. Smallwood estimates that traffic from the Project will kill at least 3,600 vertibrates annually. (Id., pp. 36-37.) Especially due to the special-status species occurring and likely to occur at or near the Project, these collisions represent a significant impact to wildlife that has not been addressed, discussed, or mitigated in the EIR.

d. Artificial Lighting

The DEIR fails to address the impacts on wildlife from the nighttime lighting used to illuminate the Project’s extensive parking areas. This omission is significant because, as Dr.

Smallwood explains,

Artificial lighting causes a variety of substantial impacts on a variety of wildlife species (Rich and Longcore 2006), including interference with circadian rhythm, disruption of foraging activity, disruption of movement patterns, navigational interference and lethal attraction of flying birds, and altered development of eggs and juveniles/larvae.

(Ex. A, p. 33.) Due to the special-status species occurring and likely to occur at or near the Project and the proximity of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area, the DEIR should be revised to disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts to wildlife from artificial lighting.

SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

4. The DEIR’s proposed mitigation measures for biological resources are inadequate.

Although the DEIR contains 12 mitigation measures for impacts to biological resources, the DEIR’s proposed mitigation is inadequate to reduce impacts from habitat loss and fragmentation, wildlife movement, traffic, and artificial lighting to less-than-significant levels.

Additional mitigation measures should be added to the DEIR including: (1) protocol-level detection surveys for burrowing owl; (2) compensatory mitigation for habitat loss by protecting an equal or greater area of open space in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible; (3) compensatory mitigation for traffic impacts by requiring monetary contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities; and (4) requiring California native plants for all landscaping. (Ex. A, pp. 42-43.)

II. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Energy Impacts.

CEQA provides that all Projects must include measures “to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(3).) Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the “wise and efficient use of energy.” (CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I.) The “wise and efficient use of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” (Id.)

The DEIR concludes that the Project will not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources based, in part, on the fact that the Project will comply with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6) (“Title 24”) and by providing electric vehicle parking spaces. However, mere compliance with Title 24 does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. (League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation v. County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 165 (League to Save Lake Tahoe); Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.

App. 4th 256, 264-65; California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209-13.) And even though the inclusion of electric vehicle parking is laudable, a lead agency must still analyze implementation of all “renewable energy options that might have been available or appropriate for [a] project.” (League to Save Lake Tahoe, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at 166-67.) A lead agency’s failure to consider implementation of all feasible renewable energy proposals raised during the environmental review process constitutes a “prejudicial error.” (Id. at 168.)

The DEIR fails to include any discussion of incorporating rooftop solar photovoltaic panels. The Project should be required to include the installation of rooftop solar panels to ensure that the Project does not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The DEIR cannot rely on the more relaxed standards of Title 24 that allow for the rooftops to only be solar-ready without requiring the actual installation of solar panels. A revised SAFER Comment
Conejo Summit Project
Draft EIR (SCH# 2023020425)
January 9, 2025

DEIR should require the installation of rooftop solar panels or otherwise explain why solar installation is infeasible.

CONCLUSION
Due to the DEIR’s failure to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project’s impacts to biological resources and the DEIR’s failure to ensure that the Project does not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, SAFER respectfully requests that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR to address the concerns raised in this written comment. SAFER reserves the right to supplement this comment throughout the administrative process. (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.)
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Scott Kolwitz, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
2100 Thousand Oaks Boulevard
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 4 January 2025
RE: Conejo Summit Project DEIR
Dear Mr. Kolwitz,
I write to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed Conejo Summit Project (City of Thousand Oaks 2024), which I understand would add 15 industrial buildings up to 41 feet tall and totaling 754,222 square feet of floor space, and accompanied by 1,663 parking stalls on 51.34 acres at Conejo Center Drive and Rancho Conejo Blvd., Newbury Park. I also reviewed the biological resources report (Dudek 2024). I write to comment on the inaccuracies of the characterization of the existing environmental setting and the inadequacies of the impacts analyses and mitigation.

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

SITE VISIT
We visited the project site on three separate sets of dates, totaling 13.5 person-hours of reconnaissance surveys (Table 1). We walked the site’s perimeters where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. We recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife we detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level. The site had been graded in the past, and is now covered by annual grassland and patchy coastal sage scrub (Photos 1-4). It was bordered by expansive scrubland, chaparral and woodland as part of the Conejo Open Space Conservation Area to the west and north, and otherwise by industrial buildings.
2 Table 1. Reconnaissance surveys conducted on the Conejo Summit Project in Thousand Oaks, California, totaling 13.5 hours.

Date

Biologist
Start
time
Duration
(mins)

Conditions
7 March 2022 KSS 15:18 165 68° F, clear, little breezy
8 March 2022 KSS 06:12 165 48° F, clear, no wind
2 April 2023 NLS 15:18 146 62-59° F, sunny,10 MPH SW wind 24 December 2024 NLS 07:17 162 60-76° F, sunny, no wind 24 December 2024 NLS 15:30 95 62-57° F, sunny, 6 MPH W wind 24 December 2024 (bats) NLS 16:59 77 57° F, clear, 6 MPH W wind

3 Photos 1, 2, 3, and 4. Views to the northwest (top) and north (bottom) of the project site, 8 March 2022.

We detected 67 species of vertebrate wildlife at or next to the project site, including 14 special-status species of wildlife (Table 2). We saw red-tailed hawk (Photos 5, 6, 7), Cooper’s hawk (Photo 8), turkey vulture (Photos 9 and 10), merlin and California thrasher (Photos 11 and 12), California gnatcatcher and oak titmouse (Photos 13 and 14), American crow and common raven (Photos 15 and 16), black phoebe and western meadowlark (Photos 17 and 18), Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 19 and 20), house finch and yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 21 and 22), lark sparrow and California towhee (Photos 23 and 24), savannah sparrow and Lincoln’s sparrow (Photos 25 and 26), white- crowned sparrow (Photos 27 and 28), Say’s phoebe (Photos 29 and 30), California quail (Photos 31 and 32), hermit thrush (Photo 33), mourning dove and Cassin’s kingbird (Photos 34 and 35), Bewick’s wren and gophersnake (Photos 36 and 37), Eastern fox squirrel (Photo 38), among other species listed in Table 2.

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

4 Table 2. Species of wildlife Noriko or I observed during 5.5 hours on 7-8 March 2022 (KSS), during 2.43 hours on 2 April 2023 (NLS), and during 5.57 on 24 December 2024 (NLS).

Common name

Species name

Status1
7-8 Mar
2022
2 April
2023
24 Dec
2024

Notes 12/24/2024
Baja California treefrog Pseudacris h. hypochondriaca X X X Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes
X

Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
X

Gophersnake Pituophis melanoleucus X Deceased atop fence Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X
California quail Callipepla californica X X Large flock Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X X
White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X X X
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin X
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC X
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X Circled over site Northern harrier
Circus hudsonicus BCC, SSC3,
BOP
X
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP X Perched and flew low Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X X X Circled over site Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP X X Two counter-called Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus X X X
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP X
Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X X Foraged
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica X X X Just off site 5 Common name

Species name

Status1
7-8 Mar
2022
2 April
2023
24 Dec
2024

Notes 12/24/2024
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X
Common raven Corvus corax X X X
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC X Foraged
Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina X
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
X

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica X X
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X Foraged
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC X X X Called
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula X Foraged
Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 X Called and foraged Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus X
Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii X X X Foraged
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC X
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X X Flew over Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus X Perched just off site House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X
Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus X
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X X X Flew over, called American goldfinch Spinus tristis X Flew over, called Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus X
Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X X Many, foraged Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X
Song sparrow Melospiza melodia X X
Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X Foraged
California towhee Melozone crissalis X X X Foraged
Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus X X Called
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X X X
6 Common name

Species name

Status1
7-8 Mar
2022
2 April
2023
24 Dec
2024

Notes 12/24/2024
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas X X X Called
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X Foraged
Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M X Detected using Sonobat Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X Scat
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native X Just off site California ground
squirrel Otospermophilus beecheyi
X X X

Coyote Canis latrans X
Black-tailed deer Odocoileus h. hemionus X
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X X X Burrows
1 Listed as FT = federal threatened, SSC = California Species of Special Concern, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).
7 Photos 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Red-tailed hawk (top left, 7 March 2022), (top right and middle left), Cooper’s hawk (middle right), and turkey vulture (bottom) on the project site, 24 December 2024. All but top left photos by Noriko Smallwood.

8 Photos 11 and 12. Merlin (left) and California thrasher (right) on the project site, 7- 8 March 2022. Photos by Shawn Smallwood.

Photos 13 and 14. California gnatcatcher (left) and oak titmouse (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

9 Photos 15 and 16. American crow (left) and common raven (right) on the project site, 7-8 March 2022. Photos by Shawn Smallwood.

Photos 17 and 18. Black phoebe (left) on the project site, 7-8 March 2022. Photo by Shwan Smallwood. Western meadowlark (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

10 Photos 19 and 20. Anna’s hummingbirds on the project site. Left photo by Shawn Smallwood, 7 March 2022, and right photo by Noriko Smallwood, 24 December 2024.

Photos 21 and 22. House finch (left) on the project site, 8 March 2022. Photo by Shwan Smallwood. Yellow-rumped warbler (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

11 Photos 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Lark sparrow (top left), California towhee (top right), savannah sparrow (middle left), Lincoln’s sparrow (middle right), and white- crowned sparrow (bottom) on the project site. Photos 23, 24, 25 by Shawn Smallwood, 7-8 March 2022, Photos 26, 27, and 28 by Noriko Smallwood, 24 December 2024.

12 Photos 29 and 30. Say’s phoebes on the project site. Left photo by Shawn Smallwood, 7-8 March 2022, and right photo by Noriko Smallwood, 24 December 2024.

Photo 31. Flock of California quail on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

13 Photos 32 and 33. California quail (left) and hermit thrush (right) just off of the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 34 and 35. Mourning dove (left) and Cassin’s kingbird (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

14 Photos 36 and 37. Bewick’s wren (left) and deceased gophersnake (right) on the project site, 24 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 38. Eastern fox squirrel just off of the project site, 24 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

15 Photo 39. Sonogram of Hoary bat on the project site, 24 December 2024, recorded using a Petterson m500 detector and Sonobat.

The species of wildlife we detected at the project site comprised only samplings of the species that were present during our surveys. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to our cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into each survey to predict the numbers of species that we would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case of this project site, the models fit to our survey data predict 63 and 50 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected on the mornings of 8 March 2022 and 24 December 2024, and 57 abd 78 species were avilable to be detected on the evenings of 7 March 2022 and 2 April 2023, but only 23 species were available to be detected on the evening of 24 December 2024 (Figure 1). The low prediction on the evening of the 24th of December 2024 might have resulted from insufficient survey duration, as that survey was the briefest. Otherwise, the model predictions resulting from the patterns in the data of the other surveys indicates we were only sampling the available species of wildlife on the project site.

The patterns in our species detections indicate that the project site supports an above- average species richness as compared to 15 other sites in the region where we have completed similar surveys. Importantly, however, the species we did and did not detect on during our surveys composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence.

16 Figure 1. Actual and predicted relationships between the numbers of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on my visual-scan surveys on 7-8 March 2022, and on Noriko’s visual-scan surveys on 2 April 2023 and 24 December 2024.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have data from our five surveys. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely use the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ =
1 1 𝑎⁄ +𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
95% CI 2019-2024
Y03/08/2022
Y12/24/2024
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
95% CI 2019-2024
Y03/07/2022
Y04/02/2023
Y12/24/2024

0.99 12.5

0.99 22.8

0.99 8.3
r2 Loss

0.97 89.4

0.98 48.7
r2 Loss
Mornings Evenings
17 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 27.8 species over my first 13.5 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (13.5 hours to match the 13.5 hours we surveyed at the project site), which composed 48.7% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 67 species we detected after our 13.5 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 48.7% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, we would likely detect 67 0.487⁄ = 138 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming our ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 138 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 29 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

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

Note that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant to the
utility of the graph to the
interpretation of survey
outcomes at the project site. It is
the pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the pattern is
typical of the pattern seen
elsewhere.

Because my prediction of 138 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 29 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from mostly daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats and owls, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Our reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but they certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than our few surveys to inventory the species of 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
18 wildlife that use the project site. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the wildlife community and any key ecological relationships and known and ongoing threats to special-status species. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of the CEQA’s essential analytical steps. Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) surveys of the site for biological resources, and (2) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of the proposed project, these required steps remain incomplete and misleading.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys

To the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should be informed of which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, as well as the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources.

Biologists from Dudek (2024) completed 11 surveys totaling 54 person-hours on the project site, which were more surveys and more survey time than I typically see committed by environmental consulting firms. Dudek (2024) also reported critical survey details such as start time, survey duration, and survey conditions. I commend Dudek for the effort in survey and reporting. Also noteworthy are the 64 species of vertebrate wildlife that were detected by Dudek (2024). This survey outcome qualifies as a vast improvement over the seven species of wildlife that were reportedly detected by ESA on 26 February 2020. ESA’s findings were only 8% of the species detected collectively by Dudek and us in subsequent surveys. As I commented in my letter of 11 March 2022, “Either the reporting of ESA’s survey is incomplete, or for some reason ESA’s survey was grossly ineffective.” However, the increase in the numbers of species detected through the various surveys is instructive. A model fit to the data predicts 135 species of vertebrate wildlife would be detected by more than 30 visual-scan surveys (Figure 3), which is a prediction within two percentage points of my prediction of 138 species based on our survey findings that I analytically bridged to a large research effort (see above).

19 Figure 3. The
increase in
cumulative
detections of
vertebrate wildlife
species increased
with the number of
survey efforts, and a
model fit to the data
which predicts 135
species would be
detected after more
than 30 surveys.

Comparison of Dudek’s surveys results to our own reveals the incompleteness of the survey effort committed to this project site (Figure 3). Our survey results combined with Dudek’s, we collectively detected 87 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 18 special- status species on or adjacent to the project site. Dudek’s biologists detected 21 species of vertebrate wildlife that we did not (including 6 special-status species), and we detected 23 species of vertebrate wildlife that Dudek’s biologists did not (including 5 special- status species). We mutually detected only two-thirds of the species we each detected.

One could surmise that we and Dudek’s biologists observed two different wildlife communities.

Applying the Sørenson Index of 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
2𝑐
𝑎+𝑏 , where a is the number of species
found by Dudek, b is the number of species we found, and c is the number of species found by both Dudek and ourselves, the Index of Similarity of the two wildlife communities is only 0.67. For comparison, the mean Index of Similarity among 40 comparisons of surveys I completed over the same time periods at the same place, but on different days over three years 2020-2023, was 0.755 with a high value of 0.90. A value of 0.67 between Dudek’s surveys and ours indicates the wildlife communities between these two sets of surveys were similar but not the same, but of course the sampled wildlife community was the same; the source of the dissimilarity was the inability of either survey effort to sufficiently represent yearlong use of the site by wildlife.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Survey
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
ESA survey 2022
Smallwood surveys 2022-2023
Smallwood surveys Dec 2024
Dudek surveys 2022-2023
Y
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected a = 135
20 The survey effort not only determines the number of species to be detected at a given site, but it also affects the probability of detection of listed species. In my comment letter of 11 March 2022 on the IS/MND prepared for this same project, I pointed out that ESA’s survey effort had carried only an 11% probability of detecting a listed species, and that my survey effort up to that time carried a 61% probability of detecting a listed species. I presented an empirical model (Figure 3 in my 11 March 2022 comment letter) that forecast a 90% probability of detection of a listed species through the detections of 70 total wildlife species. The total number of species detected served as a surrogate predictor variable that represented survey effort, as the number of species detected follows from survey effort. After Dudek’s surveys, 79 species of wildlife had been detected, which increased the probability of detection of a listed species to about 92%. It is therefore not surprising that Dudek (2024) reports the detection of California gnatcatcher – a listed species. At the completion of Noriko’s surveys on 24 December 2024, the cumulative species detected had increased to 87, which would have increased the probability of detection of a listed species to about 95%. It is therefore not surprising that Noriko also detected California gnatcatcher, this one having crossed Conejo Center Drive from west to east, but both sides directly on the project site. This same type of modeling can be applied to forecast the probabilities of detections of 2nd and 3rd listed species with greater survey effort. With greater survey effort, it would not be surprising to detect California condor or white-tailed kite or golden eagle (California Fully Protected) or burrowing owl or willow flycatcher or tricolored blackbird.

Dudek (2024) and the DEIR characterize the project site as “highly disturbed,” thereby giving the impression that the site is of low value to wildlife. However, neither Dudek (2024) nor the DEIR provides any evidence that the types and magnitudes of disturbance on the project site has any relationship to wildlife species richness or species composition. In fact, some species, including some special-status species, appear to thrive in the face of certain types and magnitudes of disturbance. For example, burrowing owls benefit from trenching and infill where soils are silty or clay in composition (Smallwood and Morrison 2018). As another example, Swainson’s hawks benefit from agricultural practices that render prey species more vulnerable to capture (Smallwood 1995, Smallwood et al. 1996). The DEIR over-generalizes that disturbance reduces the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. These over- generalizations are readily refuted by the surveys completed to date, and it is clear from the patterns in the species detection data that additional surveys would continue to detect more species of wildlife, including more special-status species.

I note that focused surveys were directed to two special-status species of wildlife – Crotch’s bumble bee and California gnatcatcher. Both species were detected as results of the focused surveys. To my point above, species of wildlife are more likely to be detected when sufficient survey effort is committed to them, as was the case for Crotch’s bumble bee and California gnatcatcher. The failure of a couple of reconnaissance surveys to detect a particular special-status species does not qualify as evidence of absence. Only the negative findings of species-specific detection surveys or of an overwhelming survey effort can qualify as evidence of absence.

21 Considering that ground squirrels occur on the project site, and considering that burrowing owls in California have rapidly declined (Miller 2024) and the California Fish and Game Commission voted to name the burrowing owl as a Candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, focused detection surveys are warranted for burrowing owls on the project site.

No surveys for bats have been completed, except by Noriko Smallwood on my behalf.

The DEIR’s conclusions regarding bats remain ill-informed in the absence of surveys.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review

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

Dudek (2024) did not reportedly review eBird (https://eBird.org) or iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org) for documented occurrence records at or near the project site. Instead, Dudek (2024) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for documented occurrences of special-status species within inclusive and immediately surrounding USGS Quadrangle maps. By doing so, Dudek (2024) screens out many special-status species from further consideration in the characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. CNDDB is not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by the CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” Dudek (2024) misuses CNDDB.

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

22 In my assessment based on database reviews and site visits, 135 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 3). Of these 135 species, 18 (13%) were recorded on or adjacent to the project site, and another 41 (30%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), another 21 (16%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 47 (35%) within 4 to 30 miles (‘In region’). Most (59%) of the species in Table 3 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports multiple special-status species of wildlife and carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on proximity of recorded occurrences. The site is far richer in special-status species than is characterized in Dudek (2024).

Only 38 (28%) of the species in Table 3 are analyzed for occurrence potential in Dudek (2024), having omitted from its analysis 97 (72%) of the species in Table 3. Of the species omitted from Dudek’s analysis, 12 have been recorded on or next to the project site, 29 have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, 14 have been recorded between

1.5 and 4 miles of the site, and 35 have been recorded between 4 and 30 miles of the site.

On the whole, Dudek’s (2024) analyses of occurrence likelihoods are too often inaccurate. Most of the species omitted from the analysis were likely omitted due to Dudek’s improper use of CNDDB to screen species from the analysis.

Of the 4 species Dudek (2024) assigns moderate occurrence likelihood, 2 have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site, and 1 has been recorded on the site. Of the 12 species Dudek assigns low occurrence likelihood, 3 have been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site, and 5 have been recorded within 1.5 miles. Of the 15 species Dudek concludes are not expected to occur, 4 have been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site, and 3 have been recorded within 1.5 miles of the site.

Dudek (2024) reports that the occurrence likelihood analyses were completed prior to the field survey. However, Table 4 of Dudek (2024) concludes that the California gnatcatcher is absent from the project site due to negative findings following focused surveys for California gnatcatcher. Dudek’s reporting indicates that either the occurrence likelihood analyses did not in fact precede the field surveys, or Dudek considers its California gnatcatcher sightings as having been off site. (Noriko Smallwood’s detection of California gnatcatcher was directly on site.) Dudek’s reporting is also inaccurate. Dudek’s focused surveys detected California gnatcatcher only 438 m from the project site. Noriko also detected California gnatcatcher, but directly on the project site. App. E of Dudek (2024) assigns California gnatcatcher moderate occurrence likelihood despite having detected 3 California gnatcatchers in 2023, and despite multiple CNDDB occurrences in the area. California gnatcatchers are certainly on the project site.

Given the inconsistencies between Dudek’s (2024) Table 4 and App. E, as exemplified by the very substantial inconsistency between the California gnatcatcher analyses, I opted to rely more on Dudek’s App. E than on Dudek’s Table 4 for reporting in Table 3.

Dudek (2024) concludes that the occurrence likelihood of burrowing owl is low because there are no CNDDB records of the species within 5 miles of the project site. However, 23 this reasoning is flawed because Dudek neglected to review eBird for occurrence records. There are multiple eBird records in the area, including one very close to the project site on Santa Rosa Trail. There are records at California Lutheran University and Mt. Clef Ridge Open Space and Conejo Open Space’s Rancho Hills Trail and Rancho Sierra Vista and elsewhere within 5 miles of the project site. Dudek also reasons that the occurrence likelihood is low because the site supports few California ground squirrels.

However, Noriko and I detected California ground squirrels at the project site each time we visited it, and Dudek’s biologists saw them there, too. Of the 67 species we detected at the site, only 18 (27%) were detected during all three of our visits, and one of these was California ground squirrel. It is my opinion that the California ground squirrel is one of the more ubiquitous of the wildlife species on site. Dudek has not provided a defensible reason for assigning burrowing owl a low likelihood of occurrence.

Dudek (2024) assigns a low occurrence likelihood to California condor, but locations of eBird records and telemetry positions are only 19 km to the north, and the condor has been expanding its range year by year. A distance of 19 km is but a small trip to a California condor.

Dudek (2024) assigns a low occurrence likelihood to white-tailed kite. However, there are multiple occurrence records right next to the project site (Figure 4). Having studied white-tailed kites, I see no reason why the species should be assigned a low occurrence likelihood.

Dudek (2024) concludes that monarch is not expected to occur, because “No suitable wind-protected tree groves are present in the study area to support this species.” However, Dudek neglects to cite the source of this purported requirement for occurrence, which I cannot recall ever having seen in writing or evidenced in the field.

In fact, I have photos of monarchs on open fields with no trees nearby, let along wind- protected trees. In my opinion, Dudek has pigeon-holed monarch into an unrealistically narrow portion of the environment. Monarchs occur more broadly, and they must if they are to migrate the great distances that they do to winter roost sites. According to iNaturalist, monarch occurrence records, including larvae, are located as close as 620 m from the project site, and nowhere near trees. Dudek’s (2024) characterization of monarch habitat is inaccurate.

24 Figure 4. eBird occurrence records (blue teardrops) of white-tailed kite very close to the project site.

Dudek (2024) assigns a low occurrence likelihood to mountain lion, explaining “this species has the potential to occur in the study area as a transient during foraging, movement through its home range, or during the dispersal of young. However, due to the proximity of the project site to development, lions are more likely to use the undisturbed open space areas surrounding the study area, and natal dens of this species are not expected since females typically avoid areas of human activity… because the project site is highly disturbed and supports a more open scrub habitat with less cover than the surrounding areas, mountain lions are likely to avoid use of the project site.” However, a photo of a mountain lion taken only one mile east of the project site (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/60780759) shows it next to the fence that borders a housing complex. This photo refutes Dudek’s speculative habitat

25 requirements, as does lots of other evidence of mountain lions in proximity to human development.

I began my research career on mountain lions. Until 1985, the range map of California mountain lion excluded Marin County for some of the same speculated factors cited by Dudek. Funded by CDFW, I did a survey in Marin County, and found mother and kitten tracks on Corte Madera Ridge just upslope from houses in San Rafael. The range map was changed. Since 1985, I have surveyed for mountain lions on randomized plots statewide at least eight times, and I have performed additional, more focused surveys, as well. I have often found mountain lions close to human habitation, and I have many times tracked mountain lions that traveled miles at a time. The one mile between the project site and the nearest iNaturalist record is trivial for a mountain lion. I once saw a female mountain lion calling for a mate on the UC Davis Campus, and shortly afterwards a female and her kitten were captured on the campus after the mother killed several mule deer that were kept in a pen for research purposes. Mountain lions frequently make use of human-dominated landscapes, and I will posit that they do so much more often than people realize. Mountain lions are stealthy, and mostly nocturnal in their activities. Dudek’s analysis of mountain lion occurrence likelihood is contrived and misleading.

In addition to the above, I found other inaccurate characterizations of habitat of special- status species, which led to unfounded predictions of low occurrence likelihoods. It would have been helpful had Dudek made more use of the scientific literature, and had it consulted with species experts. Sources need to be cited.

26 Table 3. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify those species we detected.

Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT Not expected In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE Not expected In range Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Not expected Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Occurs Very close Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Not expected In region Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus FE, SSC In region
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC Not expected Very close Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Low In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Moderate Very close San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Low Nearby California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Low In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Not expected Nearby South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC Not expected In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus SSC2 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE Not expected In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC Not expected In region 27 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC Nearby
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC Nearby
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Just off site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP Not expected Nearby Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 Nearby
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens BCC In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
California condor Gymnogyps californianus FE, CE, CFP Low In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Low Very close Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP, WL Low Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Just off site Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site
28 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP On site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP, CCE Low Very close Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma BOP Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Occurs On site American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP On site
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not expected In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not expected Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Moderate Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC On site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Not expected Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Very close
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Occurs On site
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Moderate On site Coastal cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
SSC1 Occurs On site
California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Occurs On site Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
29 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Occurs On site Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Very close Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Very close Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Nearby
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL On site
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Occurs Very close Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Not expected Nearby Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Low Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M In region
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M On site
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H Low In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range 30 Common name

Species name

Status1
DEIR occurrence
likelihoods
Data bases,
Site visits
Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Low Nearby
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L In region Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG:MH In region Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H Not expected In region San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In range San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC Moderate In region Ringtail Bassariscus astutus CFP In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Low Nearby
Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT Low Very close
1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 1Delisted as CFP

31 POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, the whole of a species, and ecological communities. The accuracy of this analysis depends on an accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting. In the case of the proposed project, the existing environmental setting has not been accurately characterized, and several important types of potential project impacts have been inadequately analyzed or not analyzed at all. These types of impacts include habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, and wildlife-automobile collision mortality.

HABITAT LOSS AND HABITAT FRAGMENTATION

Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. Habitat fragmentation amplifies the negative effects of habitat loss on the productive capacities of biological species (Smallwood 2015). However, instead of analyzing this type of impact with any rigor, the DEIR writes that ample habitat exists outside the perimeter of the project site. The DEIR does not consider that habitat outside the project site is already occupied, and the project would reduce carrying capacities of the species affected. Carrying capacities prevent wildlife from existing at densities that would result from project refugees crowded into neighboring habitat. Ultimately, either the refugees or the animals in the receiving habitat would succumb to the breach of carrying capacity, and the numbers of each species would decline to the reduced carrying capacities resulting from the project.

The DEIR provides flawed impacts analysis of the effects of habitat loss on individual species. For example, it writes (p. 3.3-23) “Direct impacts to loggerhead shrike resulting from habitat loss would be less than significant. The nesting habitat on the Project site is of low quality and abundant suitable habitat is present in the Project vicinity, …” However, the statement contrives a distinction between nesting habitat and other habitat that does not exist in nature, as all habitat is critical to breeding success. Note that the DEIR neglects to characterize loggerhead shrike nesting habitat as opposed to some other type of habitat. Additionally, the statement invokes the term “habitat quality” in a manner that is not used in wildlife ecology, as habitat quality is typically measured by reproductive metrics connoting breeding success or productivity; unless Dudek measured productivity of loggerhead shrikes, the DEIR’s use of the term habitat quality is unsupported. Based on my experience (Smallwood and Smallwood 2021), the project site looks like loggerhead shrike habitat.

The DEIR makes the same claims of abundant habitat in the project area regarding coastal whiptail and Crotch’s bumble bee. Rather than acting as judge over the sufficiency of habitat that would remain in the area following project construction, the DEIR should instead predict the numbers of each species that would be lost to the project.

Noriko Smallwood and I measured the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had 32 originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures per existing policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the effects of projects to wildlife in neighboring habitats, and found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well.

Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but also in net loss of productive capacity (Smallwood 2015). This loss of capacity can be predicted (Smallwood 2022), starting with two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes, which supported total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. These 2 study sites differed from the project site by including more woodland and wetland, so I assumed the nest density at the project site is half the densities of the two study sites. Multiplying

17.15 nests/acre against 51.34 acres would predict a loss of 880 bird nest sites. Assuming

1.39 broods per nest site, which is the average among 322 North American bird species I asked Noriko to review, then I predict the project would cost California 1,223 nest attempts/year.

The loss of 880 nest sites and 1,223 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the DEIR. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 3,547 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 3,899 birds per year denied to California.

The loss of 3,899 birds per year would be both substantial and highly significant. Most if not all of these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. Therefore, the DEIR should be withdrawn from public circulation and 33 revised to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to birds resulting from the reduction of avian productive capacity caused by habitat loss.

Artificial Light Impacts on Wildlife

The project would add nighttime lighting to illuminate extensive parking areas and other project features. Though minimized by downward shielding, some level of the added lighting would penetrate adjacent scrubland bordering the project site, illuminating surface areas normally traversed by nocturnal wildlife that rely on darkness for stealth. Penetrating light would also generate stark light/shadow contrasts that can be confusing to wildlife. Artificial lighting causes a variety of substantial impacts on a variety of wildlife species (Rich and Longcore 2006), including interference with circadian rhythm, disruption of foraging activity, disruption of movement patterns, navigational interference and lethal attraction of flying birds, and altered development of eggs and juveniles/larvae. Added lighting could cause displacement or altered activity patterns of at least some species, resulting in habitat degradation and additional habitat loss. The DEIR provides no analysis of any of these types of impacts, and makes no predictions of the extent of light penetration into wildlife habitat nor of habitat loss resulting from light pollution. The DEIR needs to be revised to analyze impacts resulting from habitat loss that would result from project-generated light pollution.

WILDLIFE MOVEMENT

The DEIR (p. 3.3-12) asserts, “Wildlife is much more likely to depend on this adjacent habitat (i.e., COSCA and unnamed drainage) than the Project site, for local, largescale movement.” And (p. 3.3-33), “Although the vegetation present on the Project site could provide move-through habitat, because the Project site is highly disturbed, subject to regular human use, including off-road vehicles, and adjacent to development, wildlife is expected to preferentially utilize the higher quality habitat present in the open space to the north and west for movement and dispersal.” Yet, Dudek (2024) reports no survey methodology designed to determine whether or how wildlife rely on the site for movement in the region. There was no sampling regime or program of observation to record wildlife movement patterns, nor to quantify them or to qualitatively assess them.

Based on what is reported, Dudek (2024) did not record or measure wildlife movement in any way. The DEIR’s conclusions regarding wildlife movement on the project site are purely speculative and conclusory.

Even in its disturbed state, the ground cover of the project site readily accommodates passage by wildlife. The project would block wildlife movement another 219 m west of the City’s Municipal Service Center, and by filling the vacant space between existing warehouses and the Service Center, it would extend the blockage to wildlife movement by 795 m. The project would also fragment the riparian area south of the Municipal Service Center – the same area where California gnatcatchers have been detected, as well as where we saw Cooper’s hawk and California thrashers.

34 TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE

Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic to get to and from the project site (Photos 40―43), including along roads far from the project footprint. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

Photo 40. A Gambel’s quail dashes
across a road on 3 April 2021. Such
road crossings are usually successful,
but too often prove fatal to the animal.

Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 41. Great-tailed grackle (left) walks onto a
rural road in Imperial County, 4 February 2022.

Photo 42. A mourning dove
(right) killed by vehicle traffic on a
California road. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood, 21 June 2020.

35 Photo 43. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of
Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on
10 November 2018.

While I was at the project site, I saw multiple cars
and trucks driven at dangerously fast speeds to
and from existing industrial buildings. I observed
cars and trucks rounding curves along the
project’s roads at speeds that in my opinion not
only endanger human pedestrians, but also any
wild animal attempting to walk, run or fly across
the road. Snakes and lizards would be particularly
vulnerable. I also saw local wildlife crossing the road (Photos 44 and 45), some of which were nearly struck and killed. Existing environmental conditions are already dangerous to wildlife that must cross the roads.

Photos 44 and 45. A California thrasher – a US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern – prepares to dash across Conejo Center Drive, right where the road snakes between the two southern parcels of the project, 8 March 2022. The thrasher followed through with its dash at great risk of being crushed by a speeding vehicle.

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and

36 searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,900 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

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

52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red- legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife

The DEIR predicts 23,192 daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which translates to 8,465,080 annual VMT. These would be many miles driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating. Despite the obvious risks to wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, and despite my comments on this issue in response to the IS/MND prepared for the same project in 2022, the DEIR does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 3,600 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to 37 project-generated traffic. This level of mortality would qualify as a significant impact, and based on my review of the DEIR, it would be an unmitigated impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The DEIR does not provide much of a cumulative impacts analysis, and the analysis it does provide is flawed. After defining the source of cumulative impacts as past, present and foreseeable future projects, the DEIR skips over past projects as if they never happened. In fact, past projects contributed to a stretch of Thousand Oaks development extending northwest into natural wildlands, substantially fragmenting habitat and interfering with wildlife movement. The nature of the development, with warehouses located on the highest elevations of its northwest extent, results in trucks driving at high speeds downhill along Rancho Conejo Blvd and other arterial roads connecting to US 101. Forcing trucks onto steeply graded roads puts wildlife at greater risk, as loaded trucks headed downhill are less likely to slow or stop for wildlife. The cumulative impacts analysis should be revised to include the contributions of cumulative effects from past projects.

Specific to biological resources, the DEIR’s analysis is limited to nesting birds. At p. 3.3- 39, the DEIR asserts, “Impacts to nesting birds for the proposed project and the related projects would be below the level of significance with the compliance with regulations protecting nesting birds. In addition, it is also anticipated that the other related projects would implement similar mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis as determined by project-specific environmental review to reduce individual project impacts, if any.” This assertion, however, is at odds with the CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), where they state, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The DEIR does not do this. Moreover, as I commented earlier, the projects that Noriko and I included in our BACI study of the effects of development on wildlife had also presumably complied with regulations protecting birds (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). Despite having presumably complied with the regulations, the development projects we studied caused measured declines of 75% of grassland bird species and 53% of raptor species, as well as a 91% reduction in overall bird abundance.

The evidence in Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) soundly refutes the DEIR’s assertion.

At p. 3.3-39, the DEIR continues, “The proposed Project is expected to have an impact on sensitive biological resources, which could add to cumulative impacts within the region; however, with the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 during the proposed Project, and the implementation of appropriate mitigation during construction of each of the projects listed above, cumulative biological impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.” Again, however, this assertion is not supported by the findings of Smallwood and Smallwood (2023). The DEIR requires the same types of mitigation measures as had been required of the projects studies by Smallwood and Smallwood (2023). All of the environmental review documents that had been prepared for these other projects had likewise claimed that the mitigation measures would reduce 38 impacts to wildlife to less than significant levels, but none of the claims were supported by any measurement of mitigation efficacy.

MITIGATION

Should the project go forward, more substantial mitigation measures would be needed.

The DEIR’s required mitigation measures would minimize project impacts by no more than trivial degrees, and would not address the much more substantial impacts of habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, interference with wildlife movement, wildlife- vehicle collision mortality, and cumulative effects.

BIO-1 (Worker Education Awareness Program (WEAP)): … all personnel … shall attend a worker education awareness program conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do nothing to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-2 (Biological Monitoring): The Project Applicant shall fund a City-approved Biological Monitor during the initial vegetation removal or grading activities in undeveloped areas to monitor those activities and to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures. … shall implement and monitor any required no-disturbance buffers for Crotch’s bumble bee and/or nesting birds based on the results of pre- construction surveys conducted under MM-BIO-7 and MM-BIO-9.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do nothing to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-3 (Demarcation of Disturbance Limits): Prior to commencement of initial vegetation removal and grading, the construction limits shall be clearly demarcated using high-visibility construction fencing.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do little to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-4 (Master Fuel Management Plan and Conejo Dudleya Habitat Enhancement): … each year, a Master Fuel Management Plan … shall be prepared by a City-approved restoration ecologist or qualified biologist in coordination with the Project Applicant’s landscape architect and submitted to the Community Development Department, Fire Department, and the Conejo Open Space Conservation Agency for review and approval prior to Fire abatement work being conducted. …Should accidental clearing outside of grading limits result in loss of Conejo dudleya individuals and/or loss of occupied habitat, the Project Applicant shall commit to off- 39 site in-kind habitat enhancement at a 3:1 ratio to achieve no net loss of special-status plant species habitat.

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do little to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-5 (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan): …shall develop a project- specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requiring erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during construction and submit the SWPPP to the City for review and approval. ….

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts compared to the project’s impacts. It would do little to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-6 (Invasive Plant Species Prevention and Weed Control Plan): … shall retain a City-approved restoration ecologist or qualified biologist to prepare a comprehensive Invasive Plant Species Prevention and Weed Control Plan (IPSP & WCP) in coordination with the Project Applicant’s landscape architect. The IPSP & WCP shall be implemented within the landscaped areas of the Project to minimize invasive plant species and weed invasion into open space areas. The IPSP & WCP is to be implemented during construction and for a period of up to 5 years post- development …

This measure should be implemented. Nonetheless, it would achieve very small conservation benefits for wildlife compared to the project’s impacts. It would do nothing to avoid habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

BIO-7 (Crotch’s Bumble Bee Pre-Construction Surveys): A preconstruction survey for Crotch’s bumble bee shall be conducted within the construction footprint prior to the start of initial vegetation removal or initial grading activities occurring during the Crotch’s bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31) to determine if nests for Crotch’s bumble bee are located within the construction … shall include 1) a habitat assessment and 2) focused surveys, both of which will be based on recommendations described in the “Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species,” released by the CDFW on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction. ... The measure goes on to detail the standards of survey in the CDFW (2023) guidelines.

The obtaining of a take permit is not a legitimate mitigation measure. Also, the available survey guidelines for Crotch’s bumble bee (CDFW 2023) need to be implemented prior to the public circulation of the DEIR, not afterwards as a preconstruction survey.

Detection surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee are intended to inform the CEQA review, but the DEIR inaccurately presents the surveys as a mitigation measure.

40 BIO-7 describes what should be done to complete the habitat assessment and focused surveys, which reportedly were already completed. However. The DEIR does not include any technical report of the focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee at the project site, so I cannot comment on whether or how well the CDFW (2023) guidelines were implemented.

No additional survey is needed to establish whether Crotch’s bumble bee is present on the project site. Crotch’s bumble bee was found on the project site; it is present. The question now is whether take would be allowed by CDFW for this Candidate Endangered Species under CESA. Because this measure’s implementation depends on whether the CDFW allows take of Crotch’s bumble bee, the DEIR should be removed from public circulation until it is known whether the CDFW would issue an Incidental Take Permit and under what circumstances it would do so. The public and decision- makers should be made aware of whether the attainment of an ITP is even possible.

BIO-8 (Special-Status Reptile Pre-Construction Survey): A preconstruction survey for coastal whiptail shall be conducted by a City-approved qualified biologist (someone who has more than three years of experience of conducting coastal whiptail surveys and monitoring coastal whiptail habitat in the Project region) ... If coastal whiptail is observed on the Project site, a salvage and relocation plan for this species shall be developed and submitted to the City for review and approval. The plan shall be implemented to allow a City-approved qualified biologist to capture and relocate the species to suitable habitat outside of the impact footprint prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities. The results of special-status reptile pre-construction surveys shall be documented in a letter report that will be submitted to the City and CDFW.

This measure should be implemented if the project goes forward. However, it must be understood that the biologist would capture and relocate only a small fraction of the coastal whiptails that occur on site. Furthermore, the relocation of captured whiptails could cause adverse impacts to coastal whiptails in the receiving areas, as whiptails maintain territories and are likely at carrying capacity wherever they occur. Without compensatory mitigation as well, this measure would not achieve much in the way of conservation benefits for coastal whiptails, and it would do nothing to prevent the permanent loss of 51.34 acres f habitat and the loss of movement capacity across the project site.

BIO-9 (Nesting Bird Avoidance Survey): Project construction shall be conducted in compliance with the conditions set forth in the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code to protect active bird/raptor nests. To the maximum extent feasible, vegetation removal shall occur during the non-breeding season for nesting birds and nesting raptors. If the Project requires that work be initiated during the breeding season for nesting birds (February 1–August 31) or nesting raptors (January 1–June 30), in order to avoid direct impacts to active nests, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted in the study area by a City-approved qualified biologist (someone who has more than three years of experience of conducting nesting bird surveys and monitoring active nests in the Project region) for nesting birds and raptors within 7 days prior to initial vegetation removal or initial grading activities. … If the City- 41 approved qualified biologist finds an active nest within or immediately adjacent to the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted, or breeding activities substantially disrupted by the initial vegetation removal or initial grading activities, the City-approved qualified biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the sensitivity of the species and the nature of the construction activity. …The buffer shall be a minimum of 100 feet for nonspecial- status passerine species, 200 feet for special-status passerine species, and 300 feet for nesting raptors (distances may be greater depending on the bird species and construction activity, as determined by the City-approved qualified biologist).

Construction can proceed within the buffer when the City-approved qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active.

Whereas a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be completed, it needs to be understood that a preconstruction survey achieves very little. Preconstruction, take- avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult because birds are highly adept at concealing their nests. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season. To identify the birds of all species nesting on a site requires a much greater survey effort than a single survey only days prior to the start of construction. The biologists conducting the preconstruction survey would be very lucky to find any of the bird nests that are available to be found at the time of the survey.

One reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because species of bird vary in their nest phenology within what is generally understand as the avian breeding season. Whereas killdeer begin nesting in mid-March, western meadowlarks begin in late April, burrowing owls usually begin in May, and American goldfinches do not nest until July-August. Whenever the preconstruction survey is conducted, the biologists conducting the survey would be searching only for the nests of the birds that happen to be breeding at the time, and would miss the nests begun between the survey and the start of construction. On the project site, this task would be further complicated by the size of the site, by its terrain, and by its diversity of vegetation communities.

Another reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because the nests that might be salvaged are only the nests of the year. Even if nests are found in a preconstruction survey, the nests might be salvaged, but the nest sites cannot be protected. Many birds demonstrate considerable fidelity to nest sites by returning to use them year after year. Whereas a nest might be salvaged, the nest site would not survive project construction. All subsequent years of on-site productivity would be destroyed by the project regardless of the success of a preconstruction survey. The impacts to nesting birds are not avoided merely with detection and salvage.

Lastly, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and duration of protection for any given species. This measure lacks sufficient objective criteria, and is unenforceable. 42 BIO-10 (Lighting): To prevent illumination of wildlife habitats, construction activities shall be limited to the time between dawn and dusk. If construction activity time restrictions are not possible, down shielding or directional lighting will be used to avoid light trespass into adjacent natural open space areas ... Exterior lighting on finished buildings shall be designed to minimize upward-directed lighting …

This measure would not prevent all light from penetrating adjacent wildlands.

Compensatory mitigation ought to be provided for the level of impact that cannot be avoided, and this level of impact needs to be estimated.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES

Detection Surveys: Protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented for additional special-status species, and most especially for burrowing owl (CDFW 2012).

Ground squirrels occur at the site, so there is a heightened likelihood that burrowing owls also live there. Also, eBird reports burrowing owls within close proximity to the site.

Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. An equal or greater area of open space should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that will be caused by the project’s contribution to increased road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments.

Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with project-generated traffic.

Landscaping: If the Project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping 43 with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your consideration,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

REFERENCES CITED

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

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089

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

Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

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

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

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

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.

City of Thousand Oaks. 2022. Conejo Summit Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by ESA for City of Thousand Oaks, California.

Dudek. 2024. Biological resources technical report Conejo Summit. Prepared for Thousand Oaks Master, LLC, Porter Ranch, California.
44 ESA. 2022. Draft Conejo Summit Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Prepared for City of Thousand Oaks, California.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016

Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of Bird-Vehicle Collision Mortality on U.S. Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

Rich, C., and T. Longcore. 2006. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting.

Island Press, Covelo, California.

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

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

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

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: In press.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

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

Smallwood, N. L., and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native-plant landscaping in residential yards to birds during the nonbreeding period. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J.

Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London.

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

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

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

Sørenson, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content. K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk. Skr. 5:1–34.

Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

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

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

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

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

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

Expertise

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

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

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

Education

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

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

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

Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.

Experience
 762 professional reports, including:
 90 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 92 public presentations of research results

Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.

Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.

Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV

2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

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

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

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

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

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

Projects

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

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

Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.

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

Smallwood CV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smallwood CV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smallwood CV

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peer Reviewed Publications

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

Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.

Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

Smallwood CV

7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.

Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844

Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –

71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.

Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:

Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.

Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q

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

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

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

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

John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. cdd:420-46/sk/H:COMMON/City Council/Agenda Packet/2025/2025-10-21/Shapell/Staff Report-City Council/pz/(FILE ID:
2019-70439-DP)