Twentynine Palms City Council
March 23, 2026

Twentynine Palms Solar Project
Response to Letter from Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo

• The proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to uses, properties or improvements in the vicinity;
• The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and integrate it with the existing and planned uses in the vicinity.

First, the City cannot find that the proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated are in accordance with the purpose of the Development Code, the zoning regulations applicable to the site, and the City’s General Plan. As discussed above, because the CUP would allow a commercial solar field to be built on the Project site, this conflicts with General Plan Policy General Plan Goal LU-10 and Implementation Plan LU-10.1. The Project’s significant health risks and air quality impacts are also inconsistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy CO-4.1.

Second, as discussed above, the Project’s significant health risk and air quality impacts prevent the City from finding that the proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.

Response 1.X. The comment is noted, but the findings required for the various project approvals pursuant to the Municipal Code is not a CEQA issue. The commenters opinions regarding various environmental impacts related to such findings have been addressed above.

No further response is required.

Comment 1.Y. CONCLUSION
Citizens respectfully requests that the Planning Commission continue this hearing until the City responds to all public comments on the DEIR and fully complies with CEQA. The DEIR that is before the Planning Commission is legally and factually deficient. It fails to disclose and mitigate significant environmental and public health impacts, and lacks substantial evidence to support Project approval. The EIR must be thoroughly revised and recirculated for public review to address its deficiencies. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, the City may not lawfully approve the Project.

Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Response 1.Y. The commenter’s request is noted. As provided in Responses 1.A through 1.Y., the City has complied with CEQA and provided the City’s officials, as well as the public, with a complete and thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of the Project.

The letter and this response will be provided to the City Council when they consider the Project at hearing.

Twentynine Palms Solar Project
Response to Letter from Broadwell Joseph and Cardozo

Appendix A
Letter from Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
February 14, 2026

7336-011
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
ALAURA R. McGUIRE

ISABEL TAHIR
Of Counsel
DANIEL L. CARDOZO
MARC D. JOSEPH

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
T E L : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 1
F A X : ( 9 1 6 ) 4 4 4 - 6 2 0 9

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
6 0 1 G A T E W A Y B O U L E V A R D , S U I T E 1 0 0 0 S O U T H S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 0 8 0 - 7 0 3 7 ___________
T E L : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 1 6 6 0
F A X : ( 6 5 0 ) 5 8 9 - 5 0 6 2
a m c g u i r e @ a d a m s b r o a d w e l l . c o m
printed on recycled paper
Agenda Item No. 3
February 14, 2026
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Chair Jessica Cure
Members of the Planning Commission
c/o Cindy Villescas, City Clerk
Keith Gardner, Community Development Director
City of Twentynin Palms
6136 Adobe Road
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277
Email: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item No. 3: E-Group Solar Project (SCH No. 2024021042; GPA Nos. 23-000001, 24-000001; DCA No. 23-000016; Rezone Nos. 23-000001, 24-000001; CUP No. 23-000009; DA No. 23-000001) Dear Chair Cure, Planning Commissioners, Mr. Gardner:

On behalf of Citizens for Responsible Industry (“Citizens”), we submit these comments on Agenda Item No. 3, the E-Group Solar Project (“Project”), proposed by E-Group PS, LLC (“Applicant”). The Project includes the proposed development of a 50 megawatt (“MW”) commercial solar array on the northern 241± acre section of a 477± acre site that is currently vacant, undeveloped land.1 Proposed entitlements include two General Plan amendments (“GPAs”), two rezonings, a Development Code amendment, a conditional use permit, and a Development Agreement (GPA Nos. 23-000001, 24-000001; DCA No. 23-000016; Rezone Nos. 23-000001, 24- 000001; CUP No. 23-000009; DA No. 23-000001). The Project site is located north of Two Mile Road, south of Amboy Road (extended) and west of Noel Knolls Road in the City of Twentynine Palms, San Bernardino County, California (Assessor Parcel Numbers: 0612-201-01 and 0612-201-05).2
1 Draft Environmental Impact Report, p. 1-1.
2 Id. at p. 1-2.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
Citizens respectfully requests that the Planning Commission continue this hearing to a later date after the City has considered and responded to all public comments on the DEIR, and until the City fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

The City of Twentynine Palms (“City”) prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024021042) (“DEIR”) for the Project, but has not yet prepared or released the Final EIR (“FEIR”) or responded to public comments received on the DEIR.3 The Staff Report explains that the City received forty-seven (47) comment letters on the DEIR from agencies and members of the public.4 However, none of the comment letters are attached to the Staff Report. The Applicant states that they prepared preliminary response to ten (10) of the letters (“Applicant Responses”),5 which are attached to the Staff Report.6 But the Staff Report explains that City staff are still working on the City’s responses to public comments, and states that the FEIR will not be released until after the Planning Commission hearing:

Planning staff is still in process of finalizing the responses to comments, which will be available at least ten days before City Council review of the Project as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 and will be incorporated into the Final EIR that is presented to the City Council prior to the Project's approval. Those who provided comments during this time will be provided responses to those comments prior to certification of the Final EIR by City Council.

The Staff Report demonstrates that the City has not completed its environmental review of the Project, and has not yet prepared a Final EIR in compliance with CEQA. The Staff Report nevertheless asks the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the Project’s final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) – despite the fact that neither document exists, and neither document has been presented to the Planning Commission. The draft resolutions attached to the Staff Report similarly acknowledge that “the City is still in process of finalizing the Responses to Comments, which will be…incorporated into the Final EIR”, but nevertheless ask the Planning Commission to “recommend[] that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2024021042, adopt the 3 Planning Commission Staff Report (“Staff Report”), p. 5. 4 Staff Report, p. 5.
5 Staff Report, p. 5.
6 Staff Report, Exhibit 4, 2026-02-12 Applicant Responses to DEIR Public Comments.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
MMRP, and adopt the related Statement of Overriding Considerations”7 and adopt the proposed General Plan amendments, rezoning, and other entitlements.8 The proposed recommendations are premature, in violation of CEQA and the Municipal Code, and unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.

First, the Planning Commission cannot recommend certification of the FEIR or MMRP when public comments are still being evaluated, and final mitigation measures and alternatives are still under consideration. CEQA requires the lead agency to consider all comments received on the Draft EIR, and prohibits certification of an EIR unless all feasible mitigation and alternatives have been incorporated into the project to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.9 Moreover, when a final EIR makes important changes to the draft EIR, such as revising an impact conclusion, adding an alternative, or changing a mitigation measure, the EIR must be recirculated for additional public review and comment.10 The City has not finished considering public comments, and may need to add or revise mitigation measures, consider new alternatives, or recirculate the DEIR in response to evidence presented by commenters. The Planning Commission cannot recommend certification of the EIR until the City completes these steps.

Second, under CEQA, the EIR must reflect the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.11 In recommending approval of the EIR, MMRP and Project entitlements, the Planning Commission has a duty to exercise independent judgment in determining whether the EIR includes all necessary mitigation and alternatives to reduce the Project’s significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The Commission cannot exercise independent judgment over the adequacy of the FEIR and final mitigation measures if they do not yet exist.

Finally, the City’s approval findings for the Project’s entitlements must be supported by substantial evidence.12 The Planning Commission lacks substantial evidence to support the findings to recommend approval at this time because the substantial evidence in public comments from agencies, members of the public, and experts (including these comments) demonstrate that the Project has significant, unmitigated environmental and public health impacts that the DEIR fails to disclose or mitigate. The draft resolutions ask the Commission to find that the Project’s proposed GPAs, rezoning and other entitlements are supported by the 7 Staff Report, Draft Resolution No. 26-___ re CEQA findings, Section 2. 8 Id, Sections 3-9.
9 PRC § 21081(a).
10 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”) § 15088.5.
11 Pub. Res. Code §21082.1(c); CEQA guidelines §15090(a). 12 Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
DEIR (not the FEIR), that there is no evidence in the record of adverse, unmitigated effects on public health or safety, and that the proposed land use amendments “will not adversely affect the existing community.”13 The proposed findings are entirely unsupported and contradicted by the record which demonstrates that the Project has significant, unmitigated public health impacts from Valley Fever, unmitigated biological resources impacts on special status species, among other impacts. The Commission cannot recommend approval of the Project’s entitlements based on unsupported findings.

The Planning Commission should defer its consideration of the Project until the City has considered and responded to all public comments on the DEIR, including Citizens’ comments, revised and recirculated the EIR to comply with CEQA, and prepared a legally adequate FEIR. Until then, the City cannot approve, or recommend approval, of the Project or its entitlements. Citizens reserves the right to submit additional comments on the DEIR and the FEIR at later hearings and proceedings on the Project.14

I. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
On January 22, 2026, Citizens submitted preliminary comments on the DEIR which explained that the City’s failure to comply with its procedural and substantive duties under CEQA prevented Citizens’ from conducting a full and meaningful analysis of the Project and its potential impacts. In particular, the City failed to provide access to critical DEIR reference documents during the public comment period and declined to extend the public comment period, in violation of CEQA.

Citizens has reviewed the DEIR and recently produced DEIR reference documents with its experts, and concludes that the DEIR fails to comply with CEQA. Based on our review, it is clear that the DEIR fails as an informational document under CEQA and lacks substantial evidence to supports its conclusions that the Project’s significant impacts would be mitigated to the greatest extent feasible. There is also substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts are far more extensive than disclosed in the DEIR. Citizens and their expert consultants have identified numerous potentially significant impacts that the DEIR either mischaracterizes, 13 Draft Resolution, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
14 Gov. Code § 65009(b); Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
underestimates, or fails to identify. Moreover, many of the mitigation measures described in the DEIR will not, in fact, mitigate impacts to the extent claimed.

For example, Citizens’ air quality expert James Clark, Ph.D. finds that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts related to Valley Fever.15 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that construction workers, nearby residences, and the surrounding community will be at a heightened risk of being exposed to Valley Fever spores during Project-related construction activities, which may result in significant health risks. This risk cannot be mitigated by the mitigation currently proposed in the DEIR.

Citizens’ biological expert Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. concludes that the Project fails to establish an adequate environmental setting against which to analyze the Project’s impacts to biological resources. As a result, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate significant impacts to burrowing owls, LeConte’s Thrasher, and other special status species that likely use the Project site.16 Dr.

Smallwood also provides substantial evidence that significant bird and bat deaths will occur due to collision with project-related traffic, PV panels, and security fences. The DEIR also fails to adequately analyze potentially significant impacts to wildlife movement that the Project will cause. The DEIR’s current mitigation measures do not reduce these significant impacts to the greatest extent feasible, as required by CEQA. The attached expert reports are incorporated by reference into this comment letter as if fully set forth herein and must be considered part of the record for this Project.

Further, the DEIR violates CEQA by piecemealing review of the Project’s estimated ROG emissions and by relying on deferred mitigation to address the Project’s impacts to biological resources. These violations lead the City to improperly conclude that the Project will not result in significant impacts to air quality or biological resources. The City must revise and recirculate the DEIR to fully disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts, in compliance with CEQA.
15 See Exhibit A, James Clark, Ph.D., Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the E-Group PS Solar Project (January 30, 2026) (“Clark Comments”). 16 See Exhibit B, Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the E-Group PS Solar Project (January 30, 2026) (“Smallwood Comments).

February 14, 2026

7336-011
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Citizens is a coalition of labor organizations with members who may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The coalition includes California Unions for Reliable Energy (“CURE”) and its local affiliates, and the affiliates’ members who live, recreate, work, and raise families in and around the City of Twentynine Palms and San Bernardino County. Citizens, its participating organizations, and their members stand to be directly affected by the Project’s impacts.

Since its founding in 1997, CURE has been committed to building a strong economy and healthier environment and it works to construct, operate, and maintain conventional and renewable energy power plants and other industrial facilities throughout California. CURE supports the development of clean, renewable energy technology, including geothermal power generation, where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health and the environment. Only by maintaining the highest standards can energy development truly be sustainable.

The individual members of Citizens, and the members of its affiliated labor organizations, would be directly affected by the Project and may also work constructing the Project itself. They would therefore be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that may be present on the Project site. They each have a personal stake in protecting the Project area from unnecessary, adverse environmental and public health and safety impacts.

Citizens supports and encourages the sustainable development of California’s energy and natural resources and has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and a safe working environment.

Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live and recreate in the County. Continued degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduces future employment opportunities.

Finally, the organizational members of Citizens are concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits. CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits

February 14, 2026

7336-011
are weighed against significant impacts to the environment. It is in this spirit we offer these comments.

II. THE DEIR FAILS TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE EXISTING

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING RELATED TO BIOLOGICAL

RESOURCES
The DEIR fails to provide a complete and accurate description of the Project’s environmental setting related to special-status species of wildlife. This contravenes the fundamental purpose of the environmental review process, which is to determine whether there is a potentially substantial, adverse change compared to the existing setting. CEQA requires that a lead agency include a description of the physical environmental conditions, or “baseline,” in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time environmental review commences.17 As the courts have repeatedly held, the impacts of a project must be measured against the “real conditions on the ground.”18 The description of the environmental setting constitutes the “baseline” physical conditions against which the lead agency assesses the significance of a project’s impacts.19
On January 4 and January 5, 2026, Dr. Smallwood’s staff conducted a survey of the Project site where they identified 23 species of vertebrate wildlife—including 6 species with special status.20 This brief survey identified 10 species of vertebrate wildlife more than those detected in the DEIR, or a 30% increase.21 Based on a database review, Smallwood’s site visit, and empirical research, Dr. Smallwood concludes that 122 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the Project site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential.22 Of these 122 species, 9 were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 13 species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 46 between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 33 between 4 to 30 miles (In region).23 The DEIR’s baseline analysis was limited to a desktop review which only 17 14 CCR § 15125(a); Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321 (“CBE v. SCAQMD”).
18 CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal. 4th at 321; Save Our Peninsula Com. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-22; City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Bd. of Supervisors of Monterey County (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246.
19 14 CCR § 15125(a); CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal. 4th at 321. 20 Smallwood Comments, pp. 2-3.
21 Id. at p. 11.
22 Id. at p. 15.
23 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
considered the occurrence likelihood of 22 out of the 122 predicted special-status species detected in a site visit by Dr. Smallwood.24 This means that 100 (82%) of the special-status species with potential to occur were screened out of the analysis during desktop review.

Dr. Smallwood’s comments provide substantial evidence that the Project site supports multiple special-status species of wildlife which the DEIR fails to identify.

Dr. Smallwood’s site evaluation also demonstrates that the Project site has the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife than reported in the DEIR based on the proximity of species in Smallwood’s recorded occurrences.

As discussed below, the DEIR’s deficient baseline analysis results in a similarly deficient impact analysis for burrowing owls and LeConte’s Thrasher.

A. The DEIR Fails to Provide an Accurate Baseline Environmental Setting for Burrowing Owls
Dr. Smallwood’s comments provide substantial evidence that the DEIR’s characterization of the burrowing owl survey outcome and potential impacts is inaccurate and misleading.25 The DEIR states that burrowing owl only has a moderate chance of occurring on the Project site.26 The DEIR also states that a detected burrowing owl was outside of the project-level impact area.27 However, during the burrowing owl survey at least one pellet was observed at one burrow located within the northwestern portion of the Biological Survey Area (“BSA”).28 As Dr. Smallwood explains, the burrow is on the edge of Amboy Road, which is planned for widening and thus likely to be impacted by the Project.29 Dr. Smallwood also explains that any burrowing owls found within the BSA should be regarded as vulnerable to project impacts, because burrowing owls do not live only in a burrow.30 Additionally, burrowing owls are listed as a candidate species, meaning they require heightened protections and any potential impacts need to be disclosed.

Therefore, the DEIR’s environmental impact analysis and mitigation for burrowing owls is not supported by substantial evidence because of the deficient environmental baseline analysis.
24 Id.
25 Id. at p. 14.
26 DEIR, pp. 2.4-14, 2.4-15.
27 Id.
28 Smallwood Comments, p. 14.
29 Id.
30 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
B. The DEIR Fails to Analyze the Existing Environmental Setting with Respect to LeConte’s Thrasher
Dr. Smallwood’s comments demonstrate that LeConte’s Thrasher was identified by eBird and iNaturalist as a species likely to be found “nearby”, or within 1.5 and 4 miles, of the Project site.31 Noriko Smallwood also observed the LeConte’s Thrasher during her survey of the Project site.32 This provides substantial evidence that the LeConte’s Thrasher is present at the Project site. The DEIR failed to disclose its potential presence or analyze the impacts the Project would have on this species.

CEQA requires protection of biological resources to “[p]revent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities.”33 In accordance with this policy, a substantial impact to biological resources occurs when a Project will have “a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”34 CEQA Guidelines also states that a species that is not listed in the California or Federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) shall nevertheless be considered to be endangered, rare or threated if certain criteria are met.35 Specifically, a species will be considered “Endangered” “when its survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy as a result of loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors.”36 Additionally, a species will be considered “Rare” when either:
(A) Although not presently threatened with extinction, the species is existing in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or
(B) The species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the Federal Endangered Species Act.37 31 Id. at p. 20.
32 Id. at p. 3.
33 PRC § 21001(c).
34 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form (emphasis added). 35 14 CCR § 15380(d); Nassiri v. City of Lafayette (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 910, 922. 36 14 CCR § 15380(b).
37 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
The DEIR’s omission of the LeConte’s Thrasher is significant because the LeConte’s Thrasher is a special-status species—it is designated as a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”).38 Additionally, while the LeConte’s Thrasher is not listed as an endangered species in the California or Federal ESA, there is substantial evidence that it qualifies as an endangered, or, at a minimum, a threatened species under CEQA. Specifically, the 2025 U.S. State of the Birds report named LeConte’s Thrasher as one of the Country’s 42 Red Alert Tipping Point Species.39 This designation is reserved for bird species that have lost more than half their populations within the past 50 years and whose declines require immediate and urgent action.40 The LeConte’s Thrasher has lost nearly 70% of their U.S. population primarily because of destructive sprawl development and other habitat degradation in southern California, Nevada, and Arizona.41
Because of this rapid decline, on July 30 and September 16, 2025, the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the LeConte’s Thrasher under both the California and Federal ESA.42 These petitions explained that, combined, the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts and Coastal California Biological Conservation Regions support 99% of LeConte’s Thrasher global breeding populations and that lack of action may put LeConte’s Thrasher at risk of 38 Smallwood Comments, p. 20.
39 2025 State of the Birds Report of the United States, pp. 14-15, available at:
https://www.stateofthebirds.org/2025/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/state-of-the-birds-sotb-2025- spreads.pdf.
40 Id.
41 Center for Biological Diversity, LeConte’s Thrasher, available at:
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/LeContesthrasher/index.html#:~:text=Population%20Status,the%20face%20of%20the%20Earth. 42 Center for Biological Diversity, Endangered Species Protections Sought for Declining Southwestern Desert Thrasher (July 30, 2025), available at: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/pressreleases/endangered-species-protections-sought-for-declining-southwestern-desert-thrasher-2025-07- 30/email_view/?_gl=1*1mt4xvr*_gcl_au*MTk0MjMxOTY4MC4xNzY4MTk5MjIx; Center for Biological Diversity, Petition to List LeConte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma Lecontel) Under The Endangered Species Act (July 30, 2025), available at:
https://biologicaldiversity.org/docs/regions/Southwest/LeContes-Thrasher-Petition-7-30-25.pdf; Center for Biological Diversity, California Endangered Species Status Sought for Declining Desert Thrashers (September 16, 2025), available at: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/pressreleases/california-endangered-species-status-sought-for-declining-desert-thrashers-2025-09- 16/?_gl=1*1qysa3h*_gcl_au*MTk0MjMxOTY4MC4xNzY4MTk5MjIx; Center for Biological Diversity, Petition to List Bendire’s Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirel) and LeConte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontel) as Threatened or Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (September 16, 2025), available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=235729.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
extirpation.43 “Flat, desert habitats preferred by LeConte’s Thrasher are also desired for anthropogenic uses including housing, industrial, infrastructure, and energy developments…these land uses have resulted in habitat loss, population decline, and extirpation of populations within historical strongholds, and continue to threaten the survival of LeConte’s Thrasher.”44 The CBD petition concludes that “[g]iven the numerous current threats, recent extirpations in historical strongholds, and a perilously small and fragmented populations, LeConte’s Thrasher is at severe risk of extirpation across its entire range [and]…meets the criteria for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA.”45
Substantial evidence demonstrates that the survival and reproduction of the LeConte’s Thrasher are in jeopardy as a result of continuing habitat loss and that it is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all of its range. Because of this, the LeConte’s Thrasher meets the criteria for treatment as an endangered species, or, at a minimum, a threatened species under CEQA Guidelines 15830. The DEIR fails to disclose, analyze, or mitigate impacts to the LeConte’s Thrasher and therefore mischaracterizes the environmental setting and understates the Project’s potential biological impacts. In order to comply with CEQA, the DEIR must be revised and recirculated to thoroughly analyze and propose mitigation for the LeConte’s Thrasher.

III. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL

RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT AND UNMITIGATED AIR QUALITY AND

HEALTH RISK IMPACTS
A. There is Substantial Evidence That the Project Will Result in Significant and Unmitigated Valley Fever Impacts
The DEIR concludes that Valley Fever poses a less than significant impact because in 2022 the incidence rate of Valley Fever in San Bernardino County was only 3 per 100,000.46 The DEIR also concludes that applying Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (“MDAQMD”) standard dust control measures (Rule 403) and replanting the site as part of the proposed habitat restoration plan will 43 Center for Biological Diversity, Petition to List Bendire’s Thrasher (Toxostoma bendirel) and LeConte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontel) as Threatened or Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (September 16, 2025), p. 31.
44 Biological Diversity, Petition to List LeConte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma Lecontel) Under The Endangered Species Act (July 30, 2025), p. 15.
45 Id. at p. 60.
46 DEIR, p. 2.4-27.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
ensure impacts remain at less than significant levels.47 Dr. Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the DEIR underestimates the significant public health risk to construction workers, nearby residences, and surrounding community members that Valley Fever spores released during Project construction pose. Dr. Clark also explains why the Project’s mitigation measures are insufficient to ensure impacts are reduced to less than significant levels.

One of CEQA’s basic purposes is to inform government decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of proposed projects.48 Courts have previously found environmental documents deficient for failing to correlate adverse air pollution effects with indirect health effects.49 Thus, impacts from potential Valley Fever exposure must be analyzed and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible in the DEIR pursuant to CEQA.

Valley Fever is an infectious disease caused by inhaling Coccidioides spores, a fungus that lives in the top 2 to 12 inches of soil.50 When soil containing this fungus is disturbed by construction activities, the fungal spores become airborne and pose a significant health risk.51 Valley Fever often manifests as a mild respiratory illness, but it can progress to serious chronic forms, especially in immunocompromised individuals, and may even become disseminated, impacting organs including the skin, bones, brain, and spinal cord.52 Disseminated Valley Fever is associated with severe symptoms like meningitis, painful lesions, and swollen joints.53 The most at risk populations are construction workers and agricultural workers.54 However, while construction workers would be directly exposed by the Project, the potentially exposed population in surrounding areas is much larger.55 As Dr. Clark explains, the nonselective raising of dust during Project construction will carry the very small spores into nonendemic areas, potentially exposing large non-Project-related populations.56 Additionally, the nearest residences are only 1,400 feet east of the Solar Project and even closer to the 47 Id.
48 14 CCR § 15002(a)(1).
49 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.
50 Clark Comments, p. 9.
51 Id.
52 Id. at p. 12.
53 Id.
54 Id. at p. 9.
55 Id.
56 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
Residential GPA portions.57 Dr. Clark concludes that they may be exposed to Valley Fever spores that reach their homes during the construction phase of the Project.58 Dr. Clark’s comments highlight the fact that, contrary to the City’s statements, there is no safe level of exposure to Valley Fever spores.59 Dr. Clark also provides substantial evidence that the Project will only further contribute to the increasing rates of Valley Fever cases in San Bernardino County. In particular, recent data from the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) shows that the number of cases of Valley Fever in San Bernardino County has increased from

1.8 per 100,000 in 2016 to 10.5 in 2022.60 This is an increase of 583%.61 Data from CDPH also shows that Valley Fever cases have increased 155% from 2023 to 2025.62 The 2022 data relied on in the DEIR is not only outdated, but fails to recognize that any level of exposure could expose construction workers and nearby residents significant to health risks. The Project will only further exacerbate this risk. As demonstrated by a study in Antelope Valley, a clear link between soil disturbance caused by large renewable energy construction projects and increased incidence of Valley Fever.63 Dr. Clark explains that the mass disturbance of soils anticipated by the proposed Project will create the same conditions that were detailed in the above study.64 The Project site’s desert location and exposure to desert winds also amplify these risks.65
Risks of allowing this Project to move forward as currently proposed are also demonstrated by the City’s past actions related to commercial solar energy projects.

Specifically, the City of Twentynine Palms previously banned commercial solar fields because it recognized the risks they posed to the City and its residents, stating that “Commercial Solar Fields can be shown to have…potential decreases in the quality of life for those individuals that reside with properties adjacent to or surrounding such facilities.”66 As currently proposed, the Project still has the 57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id. at p. 10.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 Id. at p. 11.
65 Id.
66 January 22, 2013 City Council Meeting, Discussion of Options For Commercial Solar Fields Including a Possible Development Code Amendment to Adopt Chapter 19.60 ‘Commercial Solar Fields’ Establishing the Standards Applicable to Such Land Use Within the City of Twentynine Palms, p. 1 of 32, available at: https://cityof29palmsPage 191 of 1008 February 14, 2026

7336-011
potential to decrease the quality of life to nearby residences who may be exposed to Valley Fever. The DEIR fails to disclose or mitigate this public health risk.

Dr. Clark further explains that the DEIR’s standard dust control measures (Rule 403) and post-construction replanting of the site as required by Mitigation measure AES-1 will not reduce the risk of Valley Fever exposure to less than significant levels. First, Rule 403 includes requirements for a Dust Control Plan, signage and fencing requirements, as well as surface watering and stabilization with chemicals, gravel and asphaltic pavement to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion.67 Dr. Clark explains that these measures still allow for a percentage of the dust that could be generated to migrate offsite.68 This is because conventional dust control measures primarily focus on visible dust or larger dust particles and fail to address the very fine particles that transport Valley Fever spores.69 Valley Fever spores are approximately 5 times smaller than other dust particles and remain airborne much longer.70 Compliance with Rule 403 also relies on visual opacity readings for dust control, which is insufficient to prevent exposure to Valley Fever spores.71 This rule is based on smoke-monitoring methods that require active monitoring by certified observers, rely on subjective observation, and are affected by variables such as lighting, distance, and weather conditions.72 Due to these limitations, Dr. Clark explains that opacity readings do not provide accurate, continuous data on fine airborne particles.73 Second, AES-1 requires that “[w]ithin 60 days of the completion of construction, or at the earliest possible time that is appropriate to achieve plant establishment, as determined by the City and a qualified Project biologist, native plants shall be installed on the Solar Project site.”74 Contrary to the City’s statement, Dr. Clark explains that this mitigation measure does nothing to reduce the movement of Valley Fever spores offsite during the construction phases of the Project.75 Replanting after construction will not reduce exposure to Valley Fever my.sharepoint.com/personal/tuser_29palms_org/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Ftuser %5F29palms%5Forg%2FDocuments%2FPublicShare%2DAgendaArchive%2D1987%2D2014%2F2013 &viewid=511b3154%2D13d4%2D490a%2D950e%2D61025c0dda83.
67 Clark Comments at p. 12.
68 Id. at p. 13.
69 Id.
70 Id.
71 Id.
72 Id.
73 Id.
74 DEIR, p. ES-7.
75 Clark Comments, p. 13.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
during this phase, which is when the most amount of soil will be disturbed.76 Therefore, the DEIR fails to propose adequate mitigation for the Project’s significant Valley Fever health risk impacts.

Dr. Clark provides a list of measures the City should implement that would actively suppress the spread of Valley Fever.77 These include, but are not limited to:
providing specific requirements in the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program regarding safeguards to prevent Valley Fever; applying chemical stabilizers at least 24-hours prior to high wind events; applying water to all disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day; thoroughly cleaning equipment, vehicles, and other items before they are moved off-site to other work locations; and working with medical professionals to develop a protocol to medically evaluate employees who have symptoms of Valley Fever.78
The DEIR violates CEQA by not disclosing, analyzing, and mitigating the potentially significant health impacts of Valley Fever. Dr Clark’s comments provide substantial evidence that the Project’s construction may result in significant health impacts from Valley Fever exposure. Given the significant public health risk posed by the Project’s release of Valley Fever spores, and the DEIR’s failure to address this impact, the City must prepare a revised DEIR to accurately disclose and mitigate the Project’s impacts on local air quality and public health. Revisions to the DEIR should include a special focus on construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors. The revised DEIR should also include effective mitigation measures specifically tailored to Valley Fever because standard dust controls are inadequate for managing the risks posed by this pathogen. Ensuring robust protections for both on-site workers and off-site receptors is essential to prevent potentially severe health consequences for the surrounding community.

B. There is Substantial Evidence That the Project Will Result in Significant and Unmitigated Construction-Related ROG
Emissions
The City conducts a piecemeal analysis of the estimated ROG emissions from the Project’s Solar and Residential GPA portions. The DEIR concludes that the Project will result in criteria emissions below MDAQMD significant thresholds and thus impacts related to construction and operation will be less than significant.79 76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Id. at pp. 13-14.
79 DEIR, p. 2.4-24.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
The City comes to this conclusion by analyzing the emissions of the Project’s solar and residential GPA portions separately. The DEIR states that the Project will result in 89.4 pounds (“lbs”) of ROG during construction, while the Residential GPA will result in 84.4 lbs of ROG during construction, each of which are individually below the MDAQMD threshold of 137 lbs/day.80 However, the DEIR fails to compare the combined ROG emissions from the concurrent Project construction phases against the MDAQMD threshold. This violates CEQA’s prohibition against piecemeal analysis.

CEQA forbids piecemeal review of the significant environmental impacts of a project.81 Agencies cannot allow “environmental considerations [to] become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones-each with a minimal potential impact on the environment-which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences.”82 The CEQA Guidelines provide “[w]here an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the Lead Agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effects, an EIR must address itself to the scope of the larger project.”83
Here, construction of the Project’s solar and residential GPA portions would result in significant environmental effects when analyzed together. The total ROG emissions from both the solar and residential GPA portions would be 173.8 lbs of ROG. This exceeds the MDAQMD threshold of 137 lbs/day. The DEIR fails to disclose this impact or propose adequate mitigation to ensure that impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.

For mitigation, the DEIR merely states that compliance with the City’s General Plan policies and standard MDAQMD rules and regulations will ensure future impacts remain less than significant.84 The City has not provided any evidence to support this conclusion because the DEIR did not analyze the combined air emission impacts of the solar and residential GPA portions. Additionally, the currently proposed MDAQMD standard dust control measures (Rule 403) reduce 80 Id. at pp. 2.4-20, 2.4-23.
81 14 CCR § 15165; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1222; Berkeley Jets v. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1358.
82 East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 293; Banning Ranch Conservancy (2012) 211 CA4th 1209, 1222; Planning & Conserv. League v.

Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 CA4th 210, 235.
83 14 CCR § 15165.
84 DEIR, p. 2.4-28.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
dirt in the air. Since ROG comes from engines, fuel, and construction materials— not dust—these emissions would not be reduced.by compliance with Rule 403.

The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to adequately analyze the whole of the Project and propose necessary mitigation that will reduce impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

IV. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE PROJECT WILL

RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT AND UNMITIGATED IMPACTS TO

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A. There is Substantial Evidence That Significant Impacts to Birds and Bats Will Result from Collision with PV Panels and Security Fences
The DEIR concludes, without supporting evidence, that the Project would not result in significant impacts to birds related to collision with PV panels.85 Dr.

Smallwood provides substantial evidence demonstrating that the DEIR’s conclusions are misleading and based on inaccurate evidence. He also provides substantial evidence that the Project may result in significant impacts to birds and bats due to collisions with the PV panels, as well as the security fence planned for the Project site.

The DEIR’s conclusion relies upon occurrence of the “lake effect,” which is a hypothesis that PV panels reflect ultraviolet light rays that cause birds to misidentify solar panels as a body of water.86 Specifically, the DEIR concludes that there “is no evidence that the Solar Project would result in a reasonably foreseeable ‘lake effect’ to migratory birds, and there are no known special avian species, particularly water birds such as rails in the area that would be expected to be affected by a potential ‘lake effect.’”87 Dr. Smallwood explains that this reasoning is flawed in two ways. First, most of the birds killed by PV panels in utility-scale solar settings are not birds known to inhabit aquatic environments, suggesting that most birds that fatally collide with solar panels are either locals or they are low-flying migrants.88 The DEIR fails to consider how the collision with PV panels would impact these populations. Second, the DEIR incorrectly assumes that aquatic birds do not fly over inland areas far from water bodies. As Dr. Smallwood explains, many 85 DEIR, p. 2.5-24.
86 Id.
87 Id.
88 Smallwood Comments, p. 30.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
aquatic bird collision victims have been documented at PV solar projects in the Mojave Desert, far from water.89 Therefore, the DEIR’s conclusion is unsupported.

Dr. Smallwood also highlights that cyclone fencing is known to kill wildlife via collision and entanglement.90 The DEIR discloses that the Project plans to build a 7-foot tall cyclone fence that would surround the solar project, but fails to analyze the potential impacts to birds and bats who may collide with the fence.91 Dr. Smallwood estimates that, if the Project were approved as currently proposed, it would kill 648 birds per year and 15 bats per year due to collisions with PV panels and the security fence.92 This constitutes a significant impacts that must be disclosed and mitigated.

As discussed in detail below, the DEIR’s mitigation is inadequate to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to include a comprehensive analysis of collision mortality with PV panels and security fencing, as well as additional mitigation measures.

B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Significant Impacts Due to Interference with Wildlife Movement
The DEIR concludes, absent substantial evidence, that the Project will not significantly impact wildlife movement and corridors.93 The DEIR acknowledges, the Project site is within the General Plan’s designated Wildlife Linkage Area94 and is “located within the established habitat linkage areas for desert tortoise and burrowing owl that would also allow for viable populations of smaller terrestrial species and/or species’ dispersal movement through the BSA and the immediate vicinity.”95 Despite this, the DEIR reasons that wildlife movement would not be interfered with because “larger mammal species…are not anticipated to use the BSA or immediate vicinity due to the openness of the site, which would not provide enough cover for these species.”96 It goes on to state that because the BSA CDFW connectivity ranking is only ACE 89 Id.
90 Id. at p. 32.
91 Id.
92 Id.
93 DEIR, p. 2.5-33.
94 Id. at p. 2.5-32.
95 Id.
96 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
Rank 1 it does not qualify as a significant regional wildlife corridor, and “Project implementation would not disrupt regional migratory patterns given the abundance of surrounding undeveloped land for wildlife passage.”97 Dr. Smallwood explains that this reasoning is speculative and unsupported.98 First, both mule deer and coyotes were observed on the Project site.99 Therefore, contrary to the City’s claim, larger mammals do occupy the site.100 Second, a lower CDFW connectivity ranking does not provide substantial evidence demonstrating that wildlife movement will not be significantly impacted by the Project because these rankings are not based on measurements of wildlife movement.101 The City also did not conduct any measurement of wildlife movement on the project site to support this conclusion.102 Therefore, the City lacks substantial evidence for its significance determination.

Dr. Smallwood’s comments also provide substantial evidence that the Project will significantly interfere with wildlife movement. For instance, the Project will destroy between 184 and 224 acres of habitat that would normally support wildlife movement in the region.103 It will also construct a security fence that would block wildlife movement.104 This constitutes substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant impacts to wildlife movement that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze or mitigate.

The DEIR must be revised to provide a comprehensive analysis of the Project’s potential impacts to wildlife movement that is supported by substantial evidence.

C. There is Substantial Evidence That Significant Impacts to Birds Will Result from Collision With Project-Related Traffic The DEIR fails to address potentially significant impacts to birds from collision with vehicles traveling to and from the Project-site during construction and operation. This omission is significant because as Dr. Smallwood explains vehicle collisions have accounted for thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and 97 Id.
98 Smallwood Comments, p. 26.
99 Id.
100 Id.
101 Id.
102 Id.
103 Id.
104 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
arthropod fauna deaths.105 In the United States alone, 2,200 to 8,405 bird deaths per 100 km per year occur, or 89 million to 340 million total per year.106 Dr. Smallwood also provides substantial evidence that the Project will result in significant bird deaths from project-generated traffic. Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in 1,673 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year as a result of the combined traffic from both the construction of the solar project and operation of the residential GPA project.107
The DEIR must be revised to comprehensively analyze and propose mitigation for this potentially significant impact.

D. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Impacts to Biological Resources
Dr. Smallwood’s comments demonstrate that the DEIR’s proposed mitigation—Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-7—is insufficient to address the significant impacts caused by the Project.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1
This mitigation measure proposes the following actions be taken in order to address the indirect construction related and operational related indirect impacts to biological resources caused by the Project: (1) monthly biological monitoring; (2) worker environmental awareness training; (3) delineation of property boundaries; (4) standard dust control measures; (5) stormwater pollution prevention plan, (6) minimize spills of hazardous materials; (7) prevention of construction-related hazards to wildlife; (8) remove and replace invasive plants; (9) minimize noise; (10) fencing.108
Dr. Smallwood explains that the conservation benefits of items 1-9 above would be de minimis relative to impacts. They would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.109 Dr. Smallwood’s comments on collision with security also demonstrate that item 10, which requires fencing, is wholly inadequate as it contributes to collision mortality.110 105 Smallwood Comments, p. 27.
106 Id.
107 Id. at pp. 29-30.
108 DEIR, pp. ES-8—ES-13.
109 Smallwood Comments, p. 35.
110 Id. at p. 36.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
Mitigation Measure BIO-2
This mitigation measure requires an avian nesting survey of the Project site before any construction or solar decommissioning activities during the migratory bird nesting season can occur.111 It also provides that an appropriate buffer shall be established around any active bird nests found.112
Dr. Smallwood concludes that this measure is inadequate because it would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.113 Dr. Smallwood explains that many bird nests would likely be missed and even assuming they could all be found the mitigation measure only applies when construction or decommissioning activities must occur during the breeding season.114
Additionally, the mitigation measure fails to establish criteria for determining what constitutes an “appropriate buffer” if an active bird nest is found during the survey.115 It merely states that the buffer shall be determined by the biologist “based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance.”116 This constitutes impermissibly deferred mitigation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), which provides that formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time.117 Impermissible deferral of mitigation measures occurs when an EIR puts off analysis or orders a report without either setting standards or demonstrating how the impact can be mitigated in the manner described in the EIR.118 The CEQA Guidelines provide that “[t]he specific details of a mitigation measure, however, may be developed after project approval when it is impractical or infeasible to include those details during the project’s environmental review….”119 In Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee, the city impermissibly deferred mitigation where the EIR did not state why specifying performance standards for mitigation measures “was impractical or infeasible at the time the EIR was certified.”120 The DEIR does not state why specifying the buffer standards was impractical or infeasible at the time the DEIR was drafted.
111 DEIR, p. ES-14.
112 Id.
113 Smallwood Comments, p. 36.
114 Id.
115 Id.
116 DEIR, p. ES-14.
117 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).
118 City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 915-916. 119 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).
120 Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
Therefore, the DEIR improperly relies on mitigation measure BIO-2 to conclude that impacts to biological resources will be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3
This mitigation measure requires (1) a pre-construction burrowing owl survey to be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading or solar decommissioning activities and (2) a second survey to be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading or decommissioning activities.121 It also requires the Applicant to consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization if Burrowing Owls are detected and impacts cannot be feasibly avoided.122 Lastly, if an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”) is required, compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, or as otherwise determined through the ITP process needs to be provided.123
Dr. Smallwood explains that the conservation benefits of this mitigation measure would be de minimis relative to project impacts.124 This measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.125 Additionally, Dr. Smallwood states that, even if no burrowing owls are detected, the loss of foraging habitat would need to be mitigated.126 As written, the measure does not guarantee that necessary habitat replacement will occur.

Dr. Smallwood goes on to explain that the mitigation measure does not outline the correct process for consulting with the CDFW.127 Specifically, because the burrowing owl is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, consultation with the CDFW needs to begin before any surveys are conducted, not afterwards as written.128
121 DEIR, p. ES-15.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 Smallwood Comments, p. 37.
125 Id.
126 Id.
127 Id.
128 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
Mitigation Measure BIO-4
This mitigation measure requires a pre-construction survey for Desert Kit Fox be conducted within 10 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities to determine the presence/absence of Desert Kit Fox.129 If Desert Kit Fox is detected, it also requires a Relocation and Mitigation Plan to be prepared by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.130
Dr. Smallwood explains that the conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis relative to the Project’s impacts and would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.131 Mitigation Measure BIO-5
This mitigation measure requires certain Desert Tortoise avoidance and minimization measures, including exclusion fencing and clearance surveys.132 Dr. Smallwood explains that the conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to the Project’s impacts.133 Also, neither the permanent loss of habitat nor the deaths caused by collision with project-related automobiles would be avoided.134 Mitigation Measure BIO-6
This measure requires compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio to address impacts to Desert Tortoise habitat.135
Dr. Smallwood explains that this measure is inadequate to address impacts to the Desert Tortoise because its population is in rapid decline.136 Dr. Smallwood recommends a ratio of 5:1 to ensure no net loss of the species.137 Additionally, the area subject to this mitigation needs to be 224 acres, which equates to the total area the PV solar project and the residential development would occupy.138 As currently 129 DEIR, p. ES-16.
130 Id.
131 Smallwood Comments, p. 37.
132 DEIR, p. ES-16.
133 Smallwood Comments, p. 38.
134 Id.
135 DEIR, p. ES-24.
136 Smallwood Comments, p. 38.
137 Id.
138 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
written, the mitigation only includes 142.1 acres, which does not even equal the size of the solar project.139
Mitigation Measure BIO-7
This measure requires future biological surveys and proposes mitigation for any portion of the site outside the Solar Project BSA.140 The DEIR states that no residential development is currently proposed on the residential GPA portion of the Project site.141 As such, the DEIR states that the analysis for this portion of the site is a program-level analysis, and further review of project-specific impacts will be required when specific residential projects are proposed.142 Because this mitigation measure applies only to studies and mitigation that will be required for future residential development, it does not provide mitigation for any significant impacts associated with the current project being analyzed in the EIR.

E. The City Must Consider Additional Feasible Mitigation to Reduce Significant Impacts to Biological Resources
Dr. Smallwood proposed substantial feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to biological resources.

First, in order to mitigate the Project’s destruction of productive capacity of the project site for birds, mammals, and reptiles, Dr. Smallwood explains that the DEIR should propose compensatory mitigation as close to the Project site as possible.143 In order to achieve a no net loss standard, Dr. Smallwood recommends a 5:1 mitigation ratio.144
Second, the DEIR should be revised to include compensatory mitigation proposed by Dr. Smallwood to mitigate impacts associated with mortality to species due to project-generated road traffic.145 Feasible compensatory mitigation includes directing funding toward 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.146 Dr. Smallwood also 139 Id.
140 DEIR, p. ES-26.
141 Id. at p. ES-3.
142 Id.
143 Smallwood Comments, p. 38.
144 Id.
145 Id.
146 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
recommends donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care.147 Third, the DEIR should include compensatory mitigation for animal deaths caused by collision with the Project’s PV Panels and security fencing.148 This includes funding wildlife rehabilitation facilities.149 To inform this mitigation, Dr.

Smallwood also recommends that the Project undergo scientific monitoring of collision mortality prior to construction.150
Fourth, Dr. Smallwood recommends that the residential GPA portion of the Project be landscaped with California native plants rather than landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees.151 Landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, particularly native birds.152 It has also been shown 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.153
V. THE CITY SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER

WORKFORCE STANDARDS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT

AGREMENT TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN
In order to approve a development agreement, the City is required to find the agreement:
 Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs contained in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;  Is compatible with the uses authorized in the land use/zoning district in which the property is located;
 That the agreement provides for the orderly development of the property;  That the agreement provides a clear and substantial public benefit to the City and/or its residents.154
147 Id. at pp. 39, 41.
148 Id. at p. 39.
149 Id. at p. 41.
150 Id. at p. 39.
151 Id. at p. 41.
152 Id. at p. 42.
153 Id.
154 Twentynine Palms Municipal Code (“TNPMC”) § 19.52.070.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
The DEIR states that “[a]s part of the Development Agreement for the Solar Project, the applicant would dedicate land for future roadways”155 and provide “community benefit payments to the City” that will increase City revenue.156 As proposed, the Development Agreement fails to ensure that the Project will be consistent with the objectives and policies in the General Plan.

For instance, Goal LU-10 states that the City shall “[p]romote a high quality of life for Twentynine Palms residents by developing and sustaining a strong and diverse local economy.” To achieve this goal, Implementation Policy LU-10.1 requires the City to “[e]ncourage land use decisions that are fiscally responsible and positively affect the City’s economic health by creating jobs, generating tax revenue and involving private capital investment.” The Twentynine Palms City Council previously found that “Commercial Solar Fields can be shown to have...potential decreases in the quality of life for those individuals that reside with properties adjacent to or surrounding such facilities.”157 The City Council also concluded that “it cannot be demonstrated that allowing the establishment of Commercial Solar Fields shall provide…reasonable and sustainable, long term employment to residents or visitors to our community.”158 Neither the dedicated land for future roadways or community benefit payments resolve these conflicts with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The Project therefore fails to meet the standards necessary to approve the Development Agreement as currently drafted.

The City should ask the Applicant to voluntarily include workforce benefits in the Development Agreement to comply with the General Plan, to maximize community benefits from the Project, and to provide a greater degree of requisite certainty in the Project’s development. Including a local hire and apprenticeship requirement would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Goal LU-10, as well as related Implementation Policies LU-10.1 and LU-7.3, because it promotes wellpaying local job growth and a strong local economy. 155 DEIR, p. 1-5.
156 Id. at pp. 1-7, 1-18.
157 January 22, 2013 City Council Meeting, Discussion of Options For Commercial Solar Fields Including a Possible Development Code Amendment to Adopt Chapter 19.60 ‘Commercial Solar Fields’ Establishing the Standards Applicable to Such Land Use Within the City of Twentynine Palms, p. 1 of 32, available at: https://cityof29palmsmy.sharepoint.com/personal/tuser_29palms_org/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Ftuser %5F29palms%5Forg%2FDocuments%2FPublicShare%2DAgendaArchive%2D1987%2D2014%2F2013 &viewid=511b3154%2D13d4%2D490a%2D950e%2D61025c0dda83
158 Id. p. 3 of 32.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
VI. THE CITY LACKS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE
REQUISITE FINDINGS TO APPROVE THE PROJECT’S

ENTITLEMENTS
The Project requires two GPAs, a Development Code Amendment (“DCA”), two Rezone applications, and a CUP.159 The City lacks substantial evidence to approve these entitlements.

General Plan Amendment
GPA No. 23-000001 proposes an amendment to create a new Renewable Energy land use district, and to modify the land use designation on the northern 241-acres of the subject site from Rural Living (RL-5) to the Renewable Energy land use district.160 GPA No. 24-000001 proposes an amendment to change the land use designation on 60 acres of the 119 acres of RL-5 designated land of parcels 0612- 201-01 and 0612-201-05 south of the Solar Project to RS-1.161 To approve these GPAs the City must make all of the following findings:
 The amendment will not adversely impact the existing community;  The amendment is consistent with the intent of the vision, goals and policies of the General Plan as a whole;
 The amendment prescribes reasonable controls and standards for affected land uses to ensure compatibility and integrity of those uses with other established uses;
 The amendment provides for the protection of the general health, safety, and/or welfare of the community.162
The City cannot make the first finding that the GPAs will not adversely impact the existing community. As discussed above, as currently proposed, the Project will result in significant, unmitigated health risk and air quality impacts from Valley Fever and ROG emissions. The Project will also have significant impacts on special-status species that use the Project site as habitat. The DEIR has not adequately addressed or mitigated these impacts. Therefore, the existing community will be adversely impacted if these amendments are approved. 159 DEIR, p. 1-18.
160 Id.
161 Id.
162 TNPMC § 19.50.070.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
The City cannot make the second finding because GPA No. 23-000001 is not consistent with the intent of the vision, goals and policies of the General Plan as a whole. First, this would create a new renewable energy district that would allow commercial solar fields to be built in Twentynine Palms with an approved CUP. The City previously disapproved of an amendment to the Development Code which would allow commercial solar fields with City approval of a CUP in specific zones, including, but not limited to the Rural Living and Single Family Residential Districts.163 The City found that this was not consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City of Twentynine Palms General Plan.164 The DEIR does not provide any evidence demonstrating that these inconsistencies have since been resolved.

Additionally, General Plan Goal LU-10 states that the City shall “[p]romote a high quality of life for Twentynine Palms residents by developing and sustaining a strong and diverse local economy.” To implement this goal, Implementation Policy LU-10.1 requires the City to “[e]ncourage land use decisions that are fiscally responsible and positively affect the City’s economic health by creating jobs, generating tax revenue and involving private capital investment.” The City previously found that “it cannot be demonstrated that allowing the establishment of Commercial Solar Fields shall provide…reasonable and sustainable, long term employment to residents or visitors to our community.”165 The City has not demonstrated how the Project will now promote a high quality of life or create jobs to align with this general plan policy.

The GPAs would also violate the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy CO-4.1, which requires “air quality analysis for all proposed development project that have the potential to adversely affect air quality and identify and impose mitigation measures within their design.” As discussed above, the Project exceeds the MDAQMD ROG threshold and fails to propose mitigation to address this impact or provide evidence that compliance with general plan policies and MDAQMD rules will ensure emissions are reduced to less than significant levels.
163 January 22, 2013 City Council Meeting re: Ordinance No. 249 "Discussion of Options For Commercial Solar Fields Including a Possible Development Code Amendment to Adopt Chapter

19.60 'Commercial Solar Fields' Establishing the Standards Applicable to Such Land use Within the City of Twentynine Palms" p. 3 of 32, available at: https://cityof29palmsmy.sharepoint.com/personal/tuser_29palms_org/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Ftuser %5F29palms%5Forg%2FDocuments%2FPublicShare%2DAgendaArchive%2D1987%2D2014%2F2013 &viewid=511b3154%2D13d4%2D490a%2D950e%2D61025c0dda83
164 Id.
165 Id.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
Finally, the City cannot make the fourth finding because the amendment does not provide for the protection of the general health, safety, and/or welfare of the community. The significant and unmitigated health risk and air quality impacts from Valley Fever and ROG emissions preclude this finding.

Therefore, as proposed, the City cannot approve the GPAs.

Development Code Agreement and Rezone
The DCA seeks to create a new Renewable Energy district and add a new section to the Development Code that will establish the allowable uses and development standards in this land use district.166 Rezone No. 23-000001 seeks to modify the zoning map on the northern 241-acres of the subject site from Rural Living (RL-5) to the Renewable Energy District.167 Rezone No. 24-000001 seeks to modify the zoning map on 60 acres of the southern 119 acres of Rural Living (RL-5) land to Single-Family Residential (RS-1).168
Zone changes and DCAs are governed by Chapter 19.46 of the Twentynine Palms Municipal Code. In order to approve these entitlements, the City must find that the Zone Changes and DCA:
 Are consistent with the intent of the goals and policies of the General Plan;
 Prescribe reasonable controls and standards to ensure compatibility with other established uses;
 Provide reasonable property development rights while protecting environmentally sensitive land uses and species;
 Ensure protection of the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.169
The City cannot find the Rezone applications consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan for several reasons. First, Rezone No. 23-000001 and the DCA would allow commercial solar fields to be built in the City of Twentynine Palms. For the same reasons discussed above in relation to GPAs, this conflicts with General Plan Goal LU-10 and Implementation Plan LU-10.1. Second, as discussed above, the Project will result in significant and unmitigated ROG emissions, 166 DEIR, p. 1-18.
167 Id.
168 Id.
169 TNPMC § 19.46.070.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
rendering both rezone applications and the DCA inconsistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy CO-4.1.

The City also cannot find that the Rezone application and the DCA will protect the general health, safety, and welfare of the community. As discussed above, the Project will result in significant health risk from Valley Fever and air quality impacts from ROG emissions that were not adequately mitigated.

Conditional Use Permit
The CUP would allow the Solar Project to be constructed on the proposed site.

To approve a CUP the City must find that:
 The proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated are in accordance with the purpose of the Development Code, the zoning regulations applicable to the site, the City of Twentynine Palms General Plan, and other applicable development policies and standards of the City;
 The proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to uses, properties or improvements in the vicinity;
 The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and integrate it with the existing and planned uses in the vicinity. 170 First, the City cannot find that the proposed design and location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated are in accordance with the purpose of the Development Code, the zoning regulations applicable to the site, and the City’s General Plan. As discussed above, because the CUP would allow a commercial solar field to be built on the Project site, this conflicts with General Plan Policy General Plan Goal LU-10 and Implementation Plan LU-10.1. The Project’s significant health risks and air quality impacts are also inconsistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element Implementation Policy CO-4.1.

Second, as discussed above, the Project’s significant health risk and air quality impacts prevent the City from finding that the proposed design and location 170 DEIR, p. 1-18.

February 14, 2026

7336-011
of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.

VII. CONCLUSION
Citizens respectfully requests that the Planning Commission continue this hearing until the City responds to all public comments on the DEIR and fully complies with CEQA. The DEIR that is before the Planning Commission is legally and factually deficient. It fails to disclose and mitigate significant environmental and public health impacts, and lacks substantial evidence to support Project approval. The EIR must be thoroughly revised and recirculated for public review to address its deficiencies. Until the DEIR has been revised and recirculated, the City may not lawfully approve the Project.171
Thank you for your attention to these comments. Please include them in the record of proceedings for the Project.

Sincerely,
/s/ Christina Caro
Alaura McGuire
Christina Caro

:arm
171 TNPMC § 19.42.070.

EXHIBIT A

1 | Page
February 13, 2026

Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Ms. Alaura McGuire
Subject: Comments On Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) For City Of Twentynine Palms Solar Project, City of
Twentynine Palms, CA SCH No. 2024021042
At the request of Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo (ABJC), Clark and Associates (Clark) has reviewed the materials related to the November 2025 City of Twentynine Palms’ (the City’s) DEIR for the above referenced project.

Clark’s review does not constitute validation or endorsement of the conclusions or content presented in the DEIR. Any lack of comment on specific items should not be interpreted as acceptance or approval of those items.

Project Description:

According to the DEIR, the project will encompass 477 plus acres and is comprised of a commercial solar generation facility and a Residential GPA portion. “The Solar Project consists of 241± acres of the 477± acre site, and would include 184± of land graded and improved with a 50 megawatt (MW) commercial solar generation facility. The Solar Project will include 160,000 photovoltaic solar panels mounted on 720 groundmounted, fixed tilt solar panel racks each 104 feet wide and 252 feet long, separated by 10 foot wide service/maintenance drives. Solar Project improvements will also include inverters and transformers, electrical cabling and communication lines, on-site switchgear, generation tie-line, a driveway extending from the south boundary of the Solar Project to Two Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc.

OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd
Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]

2 | Page
Mile Road, and a 7 foot high security fence. Off-site improvements will include underground cabling extending and connecting the Solar Project’s power supply to the Southern California (SCE) transmission network at the Carodean Substation, located approximately one-half mile west from the Project site on the south side of Two Mile Road and certain improvements to existing SCE infrastructure.

Figure 1: Regional Map
The DEIR states that the Residential General Plan Amendment (GPA) portion of the Project consists of changes to the General Plan necessary to offset the Solar Project’s impacts associated with Senate Bill (SB) 330. Because the Solar Project will remove 241 acres of residential land from the City’s total residential supply, the applicant for the Solar Project is required to offset the loss and assure that the City does not reduce its potential housing supply. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone are proposed to change the land use and zoning designations on the 119 acres of RL-5 designated land of parcels 0612-201-01 and 0612-201-05 south of the Solar Project. The GPA and Rezone will redesignate 60 acres (half of the RL-5 designated land) as Single Family Residential, 1 unit per acre (RS-1), while the remaining 59 acres remain RL-5 (see Exhibit 5). Because the Solar Project will eliminate the potential for 48 residential units (the maximum density allowed in the RL-5 designation), the GPA and Rezone will increase the density of the southerly 236 acres from the

3 | Page
currently allowable 71 units to a maximum of 119 units. This change will therefore accommodate the 48 units which would be lost if the Solar Project is approved. There is no residential development proposed on this acreage as part of the Project. The City anticipates that residential units could be built in the future, when entitlement applications are filed, if the GPA and REZ are approved. Because no residential projects are proposed, the analysis conducted in this EIR for this component is a “first tier” analysis. Further review of project-specific impacts will be required when specific residential project(s) are proposed...” 1
The Project will result in the installation of 160,000 plus solar panels on the northern 184 acres of the site. The Project will include rows of 720 plus ground-mounted solar panel racks each 104 feet wide and 252 feet long, separated by 10 foot wide service/maintenance drives. The panels will be mounted on pilons, at a fixed 21 degree angle, facing south. Each row of panels will be a minimum of 3 feet off the ground, and will be 6 to 7 feet tall. The pilons supporting each row will extend about 7 feet below ground. The panel racks will be interconnected with underground cabling, which will be installed in trenches and back-filled. The depth of these trenches is expected to be about 4 feet below grade.
1 Twentynine Palms. 2025. City of Twentynine Palms Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report / State Clearinghouse No. 2024021042. Dated November 2025. Pg ES-2 through ES-3

4 | Page
Figure 2: Solar Project Site Plan Details
A total of 170 inverters will be connected to the panels by cables, and consolidated on the panel racks. The inverters will be connected to an on-site pad-mounted transformer at the south-central boundary of the solar project. This transformer will convert the power generated by the Project to be compatible with the voltage in the SCE system.

The Solar Project will be crossed by 20 foot wide compacted gravel service roads which parallel the solar racks throughout the site. The site plan has been designed to avoid multiple dry washes located on the property. At one location in the central portion of the Solar Project site, a prefabricated 20 foot wide and 80 foot long concrete-supported steel bridge will be installed above the wash.

To connect to the power grid, the Solar Project requires the installation of a 26 foot wide compacted gravel driveway and underground power lines, extending one half mile south from the Solar Project site to the intersection of Two Mile Road at Easy Street at the southern boundary of the Project site. This driveway will include a 26 foot wide and 40 foot long pre-fabricated bridge in the south half of the driveway, to cross an existing wash.

5 | Page
The site will be graded to accommodate the rows of panels. The grading plan submitted with the Solar Project applications shows 140 acres of disturbance, and estimates about 264,000 cubic yards of fill, and 264,000 cubic yards of cut, with no import or export required. Construction is expected to require approximately 9 months. Construction equipment, vehicles and materials deliveries would be expected to use Two Mile Road and the Solar Project driveway to access the site.

From the Project site, power generated by the Project will be routed via an underground line to the existing Southern California Edison Carodean substation located on the south side of Two Mile Road, east of Canyon Road. The interconnection line will extend from the Project’s south boundary at the intersection of Two Mile Road and Easy Street, westerly on Two Mile Road to the substation.

Improvements will be required at the substation, including a structure for SCE’s equipment and remote terminal units, a new 115 kilovolt (kV) switchrack, relays, and 115kV transmission towers.

In addition to the substation improvements, SCE will require that a 22 kV circuit breaker located at the Devers substation be replaced with a 63 kilo amp (kA) circuit breaker. The Devers substation is located approximately 30 miles southwest of the Project site, north of the City of Palm Springs. This replacement will occur entirely within the existing substation improvements, and no interconnection beyond what SCE currently has in place will be required.

6 | Page
Figure 3: Project Site Location
The Solar Project is expected to have an operational life span of 35 years. The applicant will be responsible for decommission and removal of the solar system and its components at the end of the life of the Solar Project and restoration of the Project site to its pre-Project condition. All decommissioning and restoration activities will be required to adhere to the requirements of all applicable Federal, State and City regulations.

The GPA and Rezone will redesignate 60 acres (half of the RL-5 designated land) to Single Family Residential, 1 unit per acre (RS-1), while the remaining 59 acres remain RL-5. Because the Solar Project will eliminate the potential for 48 residential units (the maximum density allowed in the RL-5 designation), the GPA and Rezone increase the density of the southerly 236 acres from the currently allowable 71 units to a maximum of 119 units. This change will therefore accommodate the 48 units which would be lost if the Solar Project is approved. There is no residential development proposed on this acreage as part of the Project. Residential units could be built in the future, when entitlement applications are filed, if the GPA and REZ are approved. Such development would require additional discretionary City approvals, including a subdivision map, and the City would be required to comply with CEQA before approving any such development.

Lands adjacent to the Project site are generally vacant and low density residential, and designated Rural Living (RL-5), 5 acre minimum lot size, and Single-Family Residential – Estate (RSE), 2.5 acre minimum lot size, consistent with the Project site. These land use designations allow single family homes on large lots. Lands on the east side of Noels Knoll Road and south of Two Mile Road include scattered large lot single family homes and a church. No development occurs to the west or the north of the site.

Under the DEIR’s analysis, the City asserts that there are no air quality impacts and that no mitigation measures are required. As discussed below, this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence or by the information in the DEIR.

Specific Comments

1. Allowing the Commercial Solar Project Will Have Significant Health Risk Impacts That Were Not Adequately Addressed.

The City of Twentynine Palms has a ban on commercial solar projects. Currently, the City’s

7 | Page
Development Code does not allow for commercial solar farms (19.18.030 Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements). This moratorium was established in 2012, following the operation of the Highlander 1 Solar Field. The recommendation from the Planning Commission in 2012 stated “Through the extensive review of the issue completed in numerous Study Sessions and Public Hearings, the Commission concludes that it cannot be demonstrated that allowing the development of Commercial Solar Fields shall provide a direct, tangible benefit to the community through the provision of improved community infrastructure, increased personal, sales, or property taxes, or provide reasonable and sustainable, long term employment to residents or visitors to our community, and whereas Commercial Solar Fields can be shown to have direct, adverse impacts to the aesthetic quality of the desert vistas the community now enjoys, deleterious effects to the tourist industry that the community depends on, potential adverse impacts to property values for the properties adjoining or surrounding such facilities, potential decreases in the quality of life for those individuals that reside with properties adjacent to or surrounding such facilities, and potential serious impacts to the biologic, cultural and social resources of our community. Under this conclusion, the commission must recommend that "Commercial Solar Fields" should be listed within all land use tables of the Development Code... as a "Prohibited Use."”2 The potential decreases in the quality of life for those individuals that reside with properties adjacent to or surrounding such facilities would include dust generation that would occur during the construction phase of the Project. Moreover, as demonstrated herein, dust generation from construction projects is one of the primary vectors for releasing Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever fungus) into the environment of local communities. Exposure to Valley Fever spores has serious health consequences for residents and workers within the community. The City has not adequately addressed this significant impact.

According to an article in the Hi-Desert Star – The Desert Trail, 3 the City is considering
amending the ban that was enacted on commercial solar projects in Twentynine Palms to allow commercial solar projects in the City in exchange for some “economic” benefit for the community through direct payments from E-Group Solar. The payments would total at least $1,385,000 over the course of a decade. The City has not provided any evidence that these funds would be used to mitigate 22 Clarke, C. 2012. California Desert City To Consider Solar Ban. PBSSoCal. Dated September 17, 2012. https://www.pbssocal.org/redefine/california-desert-city-to-consider-solar-ban 3 Schauppner, K. 2025. Solar Company Offers Payments To City. Hi-Desert Star - The Desert Trail. Published July 2, 2025 and updated July 16, 2025.

8 | Page
the significant health impacts (see comments below) that would be imposed on the Community based on the emissions from the construction phase of the Project, nor are economic benefits mitigation for harm to public health.

2. The DEIR Fails To Address Valley Fever Risks From Particulate Matter Released During Project Construction.

The DEIR fails to adequately address the known presence and significant risk of Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever fungus) in San Bernardino County. The City notes that “San Bernardino County experiences very low rates of Valley Fever. The County’s population of 2,193,656 in 2022, experienced 66 cases of Valley Fever, which represent an incidence rate of 3 per 100,000.

Furthermore, this rate is throughout San Bernardino County, not solely in Twentynine Palms.” 4 The City later concludes that “Although the site will be graded for both the Solar Project and the Residential GPA, the potential for the release of the spores which result in Valley Fever is considered low, given the County-wide low incidence rates. In addition, as discussed above, compliance with standard dust control measures would limit the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction, further minimizing the potential for any released spores to become airborne.”5 Dust exposure is a primary risk factor for contracting Valley Fever (via Coccidiodes imimitis (cocci) exposure). When soil containing the cocci spores are disturbed by construction activities, the fungal spores become airborne, exposing construction workers and other nearby sensitive receptors. The DEIR incorrectly assumes that meeting MDAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Control For The Mojave Desert Planning Area) and replanting the Solar Project site with native plants6 would be sufficient to control the impacts from Valley Fever exposure from the Project Site.

The fungus lives in the top 2 to 12 inches of soil. When soil containing this fungus is disturbed by activities such as digging, vehicles, construction activities, dust storms, or during earthquakes, the fungal spores become airborne. The most at-risk populations are construction and 4 Twentynine Palms. 2025. City of Twentynine Palms Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report / State Clearinghouse No. 2024021042. Dated November 2025. Pg 2.4-27 5 Ibid.
6 Ibid. pg 2.4-27 and ES-7

9 | Page
agricultural workers.7 Here, construction workers are the very population that would be most directly exposed by the Project. A refereed journal article on occupational exposures notes that “[l]abor groups where occupation involves close contact with the soil are at greater risk, especially if the work involves dusty digging operations.”8
The potentially exposed population in surrounding areas is much larger than construction workers because the nonselective raising of dust during Project construction will carry the very small spores, 0.002–0.005 millimeters (“mm”), into nonendemic areas, potentially exposing large nonProject-related populations.9 ,
10 These very small particles are not controlled by conventional construction dust control mitigation measures. The nearest residences are approximately 1,400 feet east of the solar Project and are even closer to the GPA portion of the Project. Fine particles like the Cocci spores will travel miles before settling after being disturbed. It is a foreseeable risk that dust from the construction phase will reach the residences, impacting the local residents.

Recent data from the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) underscore the severity of this public health issue. Since 2016, the number of cases of Valley Fever in San Bernardino County has increased from 1.8 per 100,000 in 2016 to 10.5 in 2022 (an increase of 583%).11 CDPH data also shows that Valley Fever cases have increased 155% from 2023 to 2025.12 The Valley Fever rate, adjusted for the increased population in San Bernardino County, is 11.17 per 100,000 for 2025, an increase of 620% over the baseline value of 1.8 per 100,000 reported for 2016. 7 Lawrence L. Schmelzer and R. Tabershaw, Exposure Factors in Occupational Coccidioidomycosis, American Journal of Public Health and the Nation’s Health, v. 58, no. 1, 1968, pp. 107–113, Table 3; available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228046/?page=1. 8 Ibid., p. 110.
9 Schmelzer and Tabershaw, 1968, p. 110; Pappagianis and Einstein, 1978 10 Pappagianis and Einstein, 1978, p. 527 (“The northern areas were not directly affected by the ground level windstorm that had struck Kern County but the dust was lifted to several thousand feet elevation and, borne on high currents, the soil and arthrospores along with some moisture were gently deposited on sidewalks and automobiles as ‘a mud storm’ that vexed the residents of much of California.” The storm originating in Kern County, for example, had major impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento).
11 CDPH. 2022. Epidemiologic Summary of Valley Fever (Coccidiodomycosis) In California, 2022. Surveillance and Statistics Section, Infection Diseases Branch, Division of Communicable Disease Control, Center For Infectious Diseases, California Department of Public Health.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSummary2022.pdf 12 https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/ValleyFeverProvisionalDashboard.aspx (last accessed January 16, 2026).

10 | Page
Since Valley Fever cases are directly related to the disturbance of soils in the area, the City must disclose and address the impacts that the project’s construction phase will have on the community with appropriate mitigation. Given that there is no minimum threshold concentration for exposure to Valley Fever spores, any level of exposure could pose significant health risks to construction workers and nearby residents. The City must disclose this potentially significant impact and require effective mitigation measures to ensure that construction workers and residents are not exposed. In particular, the city must include additional mitigation measures (e.g., increased watering of the Project Site during construction, use of dust suppressants, active monitoring of particulate concentrations upwind and downwind of the Site, and installation of MERV filtration systems of residences affected by the dust) in a revised DEIR for the Project.

A study in Antelope Valley identified a clear link between soil disturbance - due to largescale renewable energy construction projects, agricultural management practices and PM10 fugitive dust emissions - and increased incidence of coccidioidomycosis.13 Figure 4: Valley Fever Incidence And Soil Disturbance
It is evident from the figure above that, as the number of acres of soil in the Antelope Valley were disturbed, the incidence rate of Valley Fever also increased. The mass disturbance of soils 13 Colson. 2017. Large-Scale Land Development, Fugitive Dust, and Increased Coccidioidomycosis Incidence in the Antelope Valley of California, 1999-2014. https://knowthecause.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/Colson2017FugitiveDustCoccidiodes.pdf

11 | Page
anticipated by the proposed Project will create the same conditions that were detailed in the study by Colson. 14
The Project site’s desert location and exposure to desert winds amplify these risks. Even when standard dust control measures are in place, high winds can mobilize substantial amounts of dust from graded areas generating PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that carry Valley Fever spores and silica dust into surrounding communities. Alerts from air pollution control districts frequently accompany such wind events, underlining the inadequacy of typical dust suppression methods in preventing airborne spore exposure.

According to research on Valley Fever, outbreaks in populations with intense exposure to aerosolized arthroconidia (i.e., fungal spores) are at greater risk for infection. These groups include agricultural or construction workers, or persons who participate in outdoor activities such as hunting or digging in the soil. Outbreaks of coccidioidomycosis have been linked to a variety of activities involving disturbance of impacted soils.
15,16,17 Since Valley Fever cases are directly related to the disturbance of soils in the area, the Town must directly address the impacts that the project’s construction phase will have on the community.

Valley Fever often manifests as a mild respiratory illness, but it can progress to serious chronic forms, especially in immunocompromised individuals, and may even become disseminated, impacting organs including the skin, bones, brain, and spinal cord. Disseminated Valley Fever is associated with severe symptoms like meningitis, painful lesions, and swollen joints.

Given the significant public health risks associated with airborne Valley Fever spores, the City must revise the EIR to accurately disclose the Project’s impacts on local air quality and public 14 ibid
15 Brown. Et al. 2013. Coccidioidomycosis: epidemiology. Clinical Epidemiology. 5:185-197. 16 Rafael Laniado-Laborin, Expanding Understanding of Epidemiology of Coccidioidomycosis in the Western Hemisphere, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 111, 2007, pp. 20–22, available at https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1196/annals.1406.004; Frederick S. Fisher, Mark W. Bultman, Suzanne M. Johnson, Demosthenes Pappagianis, and Erik Zaborsky, Coccidioides Niches and Habitat Parameters in the Southwestern United States, a Matter of Scale, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 111, 2007, pp. 47–72 (“All of the examined soil locations are noteworthy as generally 50% of the individuals who were exposed to the dust or were excavating dirt at the sites were infected.”), available at https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1196/annals.1406.031. 17 Lawrence L. Schmelzer and R. Tabershaw, Exposure Factors in Occupational Coccidioidomycosis, American Journal of Public Health and the Nation’s Health, v. 58, no. 1, 1968, pp. 107–113, Table 3; available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1228046/?page=1.

12 | Page
health, especially for nearby and downwind receptors. The EIR should include effective mitigation measures specifically tailored to Valley Fever, as standard dust controls are inadequate for managing the risks posed by this pathogen. Ensuring robust protections for both on-site workers and off-site receptors is essential to prevent potentially severe health consequences for the surrounding community.

3. The Proposed Dust Control Measures In The DEIR Fail To Effectively Mitigate Significant Valley Fever Exposure Risks.

The standard fugitive dust mitigation measures proposed in the EIR are not adequate to protect construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to Valley Fever spores.

The DEIR states that the “implementation of the proposed habitat restoration plan as required pursuant to Mitigation Measure AES-1 would further reduce the potential for dust impacts, in that replanting the site is expected to increase soil stability and reduce the long-term potential for fugitive dust.” 18 Mitigation Measure AES-1 also states that “Within 60 days of the completion of construction, or at the earliest possible time that is appropriate to achieve plant establishment, as determined by the City and a qualified Project biologist, native plants shall be installed on the Solar Project site as further described in the Habitat Restoration Plan included as Appendix D.3."19 This mitigation measure does nothing to reduce the movement of Cocci spores offsite during the construction phase of the Project where the most amount of soil will be disturbed for any phase of the Project.

Rule 403 includes requirements for a Dust Control Plan, signage and fencing requirements, as well as surface watering and stabilization with chemicals, gravel and asphaltic pavement to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. Nevertheless, these mitigation measures still allow for a percentage of the dust that could be generated to migrate offsite.

Based on the Mitigation Measures outlined in the CalEEMOD model (utilized in the DEIR), watering exposed areas twice a day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 61 percent (61%).

Increasing the watering frequency to 3 times per day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 18 Twentynine Palms. 2025. City of Twentynine Palms Solar Project Draft Environmental Impact Report / State Clearinghouse No. 2024021042. Dated November 2025. Pg 2.4-27 19 Ibid. pg ES-7

13 | Page
74%. Conventional dust control measures primarily focus on visible dust or larger dust particles— the PM10 fraction—and fail to address the very fine particles that transport Valley Fever spores, which are approximately 5 times smaller than typical PM10 particles and remain airborne much longer. 20 These fine particles, when disturbed by soil-disturbing activities, spread widely beyond site, posing a significant risk to both onsite workers and nearby communities.

The proposed compliance with MDAQMD Rule 403, which relies on a visual opacity readings for dust control, is insufficient to prevent exposure to Valley Fever spores. This rule is based on smoke-monitoring methods (U.S. EPA Methods 9 and 22) that require active monitoring by certified observers, rely on subjective observation, and are affected by variable such as lighting, distance, and weather conditions. Due to these limitations, opacity readings do not provide accurate, continuous data on fine airborne particles.

Since Coccidiodes immitis resides in soils and are not subject to degradation, entrainment of the potentially impacted soils may cause additional issues to further development of the site.

The City should require that the Proponent implement mitigation measures to actively suppress the spread of Valley Fever by:

1. Include specific requirements in the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (as required by Title 8, Section 3203) regarding safeguards to prevent Valley Fever.

2. Control dust exposure:
- Apply chemical stabilizers at least 24-hours prior to high wind event; - Apply water to all disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day. Watering frequency should be increased to a minimum of four times per day if there is any evidence of visible wind-driven fugitive dust;
- Provide National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-approved respirators for workers with a prior history of Valley Fever. - Half-face respirators equipped with a minimum N-95 protection factor for use during worker collocation with surface disturbance activities. Half-face respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters should be used during digging activities. Employees should wear respirators when working near earth-moving 20 See, e.g., Cummings and others, 2010, p. 509; Schneider et al., 1997, p. 908 (“Primary prevention strategies (e.g., dust-control measures) for coccidioidomycosis in endemic areas have limited effectiveness.”).

14 | Page
machinery.
- Prohibit eating and smoking at the worksite, and provide separate, clean eating areas with hand-washing facilities.
- Avoid outdoor construction operations during unusually windy conditions or in dust storms.
- Consider limiting outdoor construction during the fall to essential jobs only, as the risk of cocci infection is higher during this season.

3. Prevent transport of cocci outside endemic areas:
- Thoroughly clean equipment, vehicles, and other items before they are moved offsite to other work locations. - Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate;
- Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than six inches when material is transported on any paved public access road and apply water to the top of the load sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity; or cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover.
- Provide workers with coveralls daily, lockers (or other systems for keeping work and street clothing and shoes separate), daily changing and showering facilities. - Clothing should be changed after work every day, preferably at the work site. - Train workers to recognize that cocci may be transported offsite on contaminated equipment, clothing, and shoes; alternatively, consider installing boot-washing. - Post warnings onsite and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection.

4. Improve medical surveillance for employees:
- Employees should have prompt access to medical care, including suspected workrelated illnesses and injuries. - Work with a medical professional to develop a protocol to medically evaluate employees who have symptoms of Valley Fever.
- Consider preferentially contracting with 1-2 clinics in the area and communicate with the health care providers in those clinics to ensure that providers are aware that Valley Fever has been reported in the area. This will increase the likelihood

15 | Page
that ill workers will receive prompt, proper and consistent medical care. - Respirator clearance should include medical evaluation for all new employees, annual re-evaluation for changes in medical status, and annual training, and fittesting. - Skin testing is not recommended for evaluation of Valley Fever.21 - If an employee is diagnosed with Valley Fever, a physician must determine if the employee should be taken off work, when they may return to work, and what type of work activities they may perform.

The City must adopt these evidence-based mitigation measures – proven effective in similar construction projects in endemic areas – in an EIR to ensure comprehensive protection of public health.

Standard dust control measures are insufficient for preventing Valley Fever exposure, and only concrete, enforceable steps like those listed above will safeguard both onsite workers, nearby residences, and surrounding communities.

Conclusion
The facts presented in this comment letter lead me to reasonably conclude that the Project could result in significant impacts. A revised DEIR is necessary to address these substantial concerns fully and transparently.

Sincerely,
21 Short-term skin tests that produce results within 48 hours are now available. See Kerry Klein, NPR for Central California, New Valley Fever Skin Test Shows Promise, But Obstacles Remain, November 21, 2016; available at http://kvpr.org/post/new-valley-fever-skin-test-shows-promise-obstacles-remain.

James J. J. Clark, Ph.D.

Principal Toxicologist
Toxicology/Exposure Assessment Modeling
Risk Assessment/Analysis/Dispersion Modeling
Education:

Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1995 M.S., Environmental Health Science, University of California, 1993 B.S., Biophysical and Biochemical Sciences, University of Houston, 1987 Professional Experience:

Dr. Clark is a well recognized toxicologist, air modeler, and health scientist. He has 20 years of experience in researching the effects of environmental contaminants on human health including environmental fate and transport modeling (SCREEN3, AEROMOD, ISCST3, Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Modeling); exposure assessment modeling (partitioning of contaminants in the environment as well as PBPK modeling); conducting and managing human health risk assessments for regulatory compliance and risk-based clean-up levels; and toxicological and medical literature research.

Significant projects performed by Dr. Clark include the following:

LITIGATION SUPPORT
Case: James Harold Caygle, et al, v. Drummond Company, Inc. Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama. Civil Action. CV-2009 Client: Environmental Litgation Group, Birmingham, Alabama Dr. Clark performed an air quality assessment of emissions from a coke factory located in Tarrant, Alabama. The assessment reviewed include a comprehensive review of air quality standards, measured concentrations of pollutants from factory, an inspection of the facility and detailed assessment of the impacts on the community. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Clark & Associates
Environmental Consulting, Inc
OFFICE
12405 Venice Blvd.

Suite 331
Los Angeles, CA 90066
PHONE
310-907-6165
FAX
310-398-7626
EMAIL
[email protected]

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Rose Roper V. Nissan North America, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles – Central Civil West. Civil Action.

NC041739
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to multiple chemicals, including benzene, who later developed a respiratory distress. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare an exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to respiratory irritants. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: O’Neil V. Sherwin Williams, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to petroleum distillates who later developed a bladder cancer. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Summary judgment for defendants.

Case: Moore V., Shell Oil Company, et al. Superior Court of the State Of California for the County Of Los Angeles
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to chemicals while benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Raymond Saltonstall V. Fuller O’Brien, KILZ, and Zinsser, et al. United States District Court Central District of California
Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to benzene who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a quantitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Richard Boyer and Elizabeth Boyer, husband and wife, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-7G.

Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: JoAnne R. Cook, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-9R
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Patrick Allen And Susan Allen, husband and wife, and Andrew Allen, a minor, V. DESCO Corporation, et al. Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia. Civil Action Number 04-C-W
Client: Frankovitch, Anetakis, Colantonio & Simon, Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of a family exposed to chlorinated solvents released from the defendant’s facility into local drinking water supplies. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to chlorinated solvents. The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Michael Fahey, Susan Fahey V. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. United States District Court Central District of California Civil Action Number CV-06 7109 JCL.

Client: Rose, Klein, Marias, LLP, Long Beach, California Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of plaintiff.

Case: Constance Acevedo, et al., V. California Spray-Chemical Company, et al., Superior Court of the State Of California, County Of Santa Cruz. Case No. CV 146344
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive exposure assessment of community members exposed to toxic metals from a former lead arsenate manufacturing facility. The former manufacturing site had undergone a DTSC mandated removal action/remediation for the presence of the toxic metals at the site. Opinions were presented regarding the elevated levels of arsenic and lead (in attic dust and soils) found throughout the community and the potential for harm to the plaintiffs in question.

Case Result: Settlement in favor of defendant.

Case: Michael Nawrocki V. The Coastal Corporation, Kurk Fuel Company, Pautler Oil Service, State of New York Supreme Court, County of Erie, Index Number I2001-11247
Client: Richard G. Berger Attorney At Law, Buffalo, New York Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of an individual occupationally exposed to refined petroleum hydrocarbons who later developed a leukogenic disease. A review of the individual’s medical and occupational history was performed to prepare a qualitative exposure assessment. The exposure assessment was evaluated against the

known outcomes in published literature to exposure to refined petroleum hydrocarbons.

The results of the assessment and literature have been provided in a declaration to the court.

Case Result: Judgement in favor of defendant.

SELECTED AIR MODELING RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of criteria pollutants, air toxins, and particulate matter emissions from a carbon black production facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model will be used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and will be incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Confidential
Dr. Clark performed a comprehensive evaluation of air toxins and particulate matter emissions from a railroad tie manufacturing facility to determine the impacts on the surrounding communities. The results of the dispersion model have been used to estimate acute and chronic exposure concentrations to multiple contaminants and have been incorporated into a comprehensive risk evaluation.

Client – Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is advising the LAANE on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) operated by the Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) Authority. He is working with the LAANE and LAX staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client – City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica, California Dr. Clark is advising the City of Santa Monica on air quality issues related to current flight operations at the facility. He is working with the City staff to develop a comprehensive strategy for meeting local community concerns over emissions from flight operations and to engage federal agencies on the issue of local impacts of community airports.

Client: Omnitrans, San Bernardino, California
Dr. Clark managed a public health survey of three communities near transit fueling facilities in San Bernardino and Montclair California in compliance with California Senate Bill 1927. The survey included an epidemiological survey of the effected communities, emission surveys of local businesses, dispersion modeling to determine potential emission concentrations within the communities, and a comprehensive risk assessment of each community. The results of the study were presented to the Governor as mandated by Senate Bill 1927.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized cancer types associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Researched the specific types of cancers associated with exposure to metals and smoking. Provided causation analysis of the association between cancer types and exposure for use by non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Prepared human health risk assessment of workers exposed to VOCs from neighboring petroleum storage/transport facility. Reviewed the systems in place for distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons to identify chemicals of concern (COCs), prepared comprehensive toxicological summaries of COCs, and quantified potential risks from carcinogens and non-carcinogens to receptors at or adjacent to site. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Dr. Clark is part of team that performed comprehensive evaluation of soil vapor intrusion of VOCs from former landfill adjacent residences for the United Kingdom’s Environment

Agency. The evaluation included collection of liquid and soil vapor samples at site, modeling of vapor migration using the Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, and calculation of site-specific health based vapor thresholds for chlorinated solvents, aromatic hydrocarbons, and semi-volatile organic compounds. The evaluation also included a detailed evaluation of the use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, and toxicology of chemicals of concern (COC). The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

EMERGING/PERSISTENT CONTAMINANT RESEARCH/PROJECTS
Client: Ameren Services, St. Louis, Missouri
Managed the preparation of a comprehensive human health risk assessment of workers and residents at or near an NPL site in Missouri. The former operations at the Property included the servicing and repair of electrical transformers, which resulted in soils and groundwater beneath the Property and adjacent land becoming impacted with PCB and chlorinated solvent compounds. The results were submitted to U.S. EPA for evaluation and will be used in the final ROD.

Client: City of Santa Clarita, Santa Clarita, California Dr. Clark is managing the oversight of the characterization, remediation and development activities of a former 1,000 acre munitions manufacturing facility for the City of Santa Clarita. The site is impacted with a number of contaminants including perchlorate, unexploded ordinance, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The site is currently under a number of regulatory consent orders, including an Immanent and Substantial Endangerment Order. Dr. Clark is assisting the impacted municipality with the development of remediation strategies, interaction with the responsible parties and stakeholders, as well as interfacing with the regulatory agency responsible for oversight of the site cleanup.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of perchlorate in environment. Dr. Clark evaluated the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of perchlorate. Perchlorates form the basis of solid rocket fuels and have recently been detected in water supplies in the United States. The results of this research

were presented to the USEPA, National GroundWater, and ultimately published in a recent book entitled Perchlorate in the Environment.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Dr. Clark is performing a comprehensive review of the potential for pharmaceuticals and their by-products to impact groundwater and surface water supplies. This evaluation will include a review if available data on the history of pharmaceutical production in the United States; the chemical characteristics of various pharmaceuticals; environmental fate and transport; uptake by xenobiotics; the potential effects of pharmaceuticals on water treatment systems; and the potential threat to public health. The results of the evaluation may be used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

PUBLIC HEALTH/TOXICOLOGY
Client: Brayton Purcell, Novato, California
Dr. Clark performed a toxicological assessment of residents exposed to methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) from leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) adjacent to the subject property. The symptomology of residents and guests of the subject property were evaluated against the known outcomes in published literature to exposure to MTBE. The study found that residents had been exposed to MTBE in their drinking water; that concentrations of MTBE detected at the site were above regulatory guidelines; and, that the symptoms and outcomes expressed by residents and guests were consistent with symptoms and outcomes documented in published literature.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Identified and analyzed fifty years of epidemiological literature on workplace exposures to heavy metals. This research resulted in a summary of the types of cancer and non-cancer diseases associated with occupational exposure to chromium as well as the mortality and morbidity rates.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized major public health research in United States. Identified major public health research efforts within United States over last twenty years. Results were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Quantified the potential multi-pathway dose received by humans from a pesticide applied indoors. Part of team that developed exposure model and evaluated exposure concentrations in a comprehensive report on the plausible range of doses received by a specific person. This evaluation was used in the support of litigation.

Client: Covanta Energy, Westwood, California
Evaluated health risk from metals in biosolids applied as soil amendment on agricultural lands. The biosolids were created at a forest waste cogeneration facility using 96% whole tree wood chips and 4 percent green waste. Mass loading calculations were used to estimate Cr(VI) concentrations in agricultural soils based on a maximum loading rate of 40 tons of biomass per acre of agricultural soil. The results of the study were used by the Regulatory agency to determine that the application of biosolids did not constitute a health risk to workers applying the biosolids or to residences near the agricultural lands.

Client – United Kingdom Environmental Agency
Oversaw a comprehensive toxicological evaluation of methyl-tertiary butyl ether (MtBE) for the United Kingdom’s Environment Agency. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MtBE. The results of the evaluation have been used as a briefing tool for public health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of tertiary butyl alcohol (TBA) in municipal drinking water system. TBA is the primary breakdown product of MtBE, and is suspected to be the primary cause of MtBE toxicity. This evaluation will include available information on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport in the environment, absorption, distribution, routes of detoxification, metabolites, carcinogenic potential, and remediation of TBA. The results of the evaluation were used as a briefing tool for nonpublic health professionals.

Client – Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in municipal drinking water system. MTBE is a chemical added to gasoline to increase the octane

rating and to meet Federally mandated emission criteria. The evaluation included available data on the production, use, chemical characteristics, fate and transport, toxicology, and remediation of MTBE. The results of the evaluation have been were used as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client – Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks, British Columbia Dr. Clark assisted in the development of water quality guidelines for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) to protect water uses in British Columbia (BC). The water uses to be considered includes freshwater and marine life, wildlife, industrial, and agricultural (e.g., irrigation and livestock watering) water uses. Guidelines from other jurisdictions for the protection of drinking water, recreation and aesthetics were to be identified.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) assessment of lead risk of receptors at middle school built over former industrial facility. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Kaiser Venture Incorporated, Fontana, California Prepared PBPK assessment of lead risk of receptors at a 1,100-acre former steel mill.

This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

RISK ASSESSMENTS/REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Client: Confidential, Atlanta, Georgia
Researched potential exposure and health risks to community members potentially exposed to creosote, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pentachlorophenol, and dioxin compounds used at a former wood treatment facility. Prepared a comprehensive toxicological summary of the chemicals of concern, including the chemical characteristics, absorption, distribution, and carcinogenic potential. Prepared risk characterization of the carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals based on the exposure assessment to quantify the potential risk to members of the surrounding community. This evaluation was used to help settle class-action tort.

Client: Confidential, Escondido, California
Prepared comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of dense nonaqueous liquid phase hydrocarbon (chlorinated solvents) contamination at a former printed circuit board manufacturing facility. This evaluation was used for litigation support and may be used as the basis for reaching closure of the site with the lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Summarized epidemiological evidence for connective tissue and autoimmune diseases for product liability litigation. Identified epidemiological research efforts on the health effects of medical prostheses. This research was used in a meta-analysis of the health effects and as a briefing tool for non-public health professionals.

Client: Confidential, Bogotá, Columbia
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of a 13.7 hectares plastic manufacturing facility in Bogotá, Colombia The risk assessment was used as the basis for the remedial goals and closure of the site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally cadmium) and VOCs from soil and soil vapor at 12-acre former crude oilfield and municipal landfill. The site is currently used as a middle school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and was used as the basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed remedial investigation (RI) of heavy metals and volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) for a 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The RI investigation of the site included over 800 different sampling locations and the collection of soil, soil gas, and groundwater samples. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The Remedial Investigation was performed in a manner

that did not interrupt school activities and met the time restrictions placed on the project by the overseeing regulatory agency. The RI Report identified the off-site source of metals that impacted groundwater beneath the site and the sources of VOCs in soil gas and groundwater. The RI included a numerical model of vapor intrusion into the buildings at the site from the vadose zone to determine exposure concentrations and an air dispersion model of VOCs from the proposed soil vapor treatment system. The Feasibility Study for the Site is currently being drafted and may be used as the basis for granting closure of the site by DTSC.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive human health risk assessment of students, staff, and residents potentially exposed to heavy metals (principally lead), VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs from soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at 15-acre former manufacturing facility. The site is currently used as a year round school housing approximately 3,000 children. The evaluation determined that the site was safe for the current and future uses and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of VOC vapor intrusion into classrooms of middle school that was former 15-acre industrial facility. Using the Johnson-Ettinger Vapor Intrusion model, the evaluation determined acceptable soil gas concentrations at the site that did not pose health threat to students, staff, and residents. This evaluation is being used to determine cleanup goals and will be basis for regulatory closure of site.

Client –Dominguez Energy, Carson, California
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of the potential health risks associated with the redevelopment of 6-acre portion of a 500-acre oil and natural gas production facility in Carson, California. The risk assessment was used as the basis for closure of the site.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for a fiftyyear old wastewater treatment facility used at a 1,100-acre former steel mill. This evaluation was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

ANR Freight - Los Angeles, California
Prepared a comprehensive Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) of petroleum hydrocarbon and metal contamination of a former freight depot. This evaluation was as the basis for reaching closure of the site with lead regulatory agency.

Kaiser Ventures Incorporated, Fontana, California
Prepared comprehensive health risk assessment of semi-volatile organic chemicals and metals for 23-acre parcel of a 1,100-acre former steel mill. The health risk assessment was used to determine clean up goals and as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency. Air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 was performed to determine downwind exposure point concentrations at sensitive receptors within a 1 kilometer radius of the site. The results of the health risk assessment were presented at a public meeting sponsored by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the community potentially affected by the site.

Unocal Corporation - Los Angeles, California
Prepared comprehensive assessment of petroleum hydrocarbons and metals for a former petroleum service station located next to sensitive population center (elementary school).

The assessment used a probabilistic approach to estimate risks to the community and was used as the basis for granting closure of the site by lead regulatory agency.

Client: Confidential, Los Angeles, California
Managed oversight of remedial investigation most contaminated heavy metal site in California. Lead concentrations in soil excess of 68,000,000 parts per billion (ppb) have been measured at the site. This State Superfund Site was a former hard chrome plating operation that operated for approximately 40-years.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Coordinator of regional monitoring program to determine background concentrations of metals in air. Acted as liaison with SCAQMD and CARB to perform co-location sampling and comparison of accepted regulatory method with ASTM methodology.

Client: Confidential, San Francisco, California
Analyzed historical air monitoring data for South Coast Air Basin in Southern California and potential health risks related to ambient concentrations of carcinogenic metals and volatile organic compounds. Identified and reviewed the available literature and calculated risks from toxins in South Coast Air Basin.

IT Corporation, North Carolina
Prepared comprehensive evaluation of potential exposure of workers to air-borne VOCs at hazardous waste storage facility under SUPERFUND cleanup decree. Assessment used in developing health based clean-up levels.

Professional Associations
American Public Health Association (APHA)
Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) American Chemical Society (ACS)
California Redevelopment Association (CRA)
International Society of Environmental Forensics (ISEF) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) Publications and Presentations:

Books and Book Chapters
Sullivan, P., J.J. J. Clark, F.J. Agardy, and P.E. Rosenfeld. (2007). Synthetic Toxins In The Food, Water and Air of American Cities. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P. and J.J. J. Clark. 2006. Choosing Safer Foods, A Guide To Minimizing Synthetic Chemicals In Your Diet. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P., Agardy, F.J., and J.J.J. Clark. 2005. The Environmental Science of Drinking Water. Elsevier, Inc. Burlington, MA.

Sullivan, P.J., Agardy, F.J., Clark, J.J.J. 2002. America’s Threatened Drinking Water:

Hazards and Solutions. Trafford Publishing, Victoria B.C.

Clark, J.J.J. 2001. “TBA: Chemical Properties, Production & Use, Fate and Transport, Toxicology, Detection in Groundwater, and Regulatory Standards” in Oxygenates in the Environment. Art Diaz, Ed.. Oxford University Press: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 2000. “Toxicology of Perchlorate” in Perchlorate in the Environment.

Edward Urbansky, Ed. Kluwer/Plenum: New York.

Clark, J.J.J. 1995. Probabilistic Forecasting of Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations At The Soil Surface From Contaminated Groundwater. UMI.

Baker, J.; Clark, J.J.J.; Stanford, J.T. 1994. Ex Situ Remediation of Diesel Contaminated Railroad Sand by Soil Washing. Principles and Practices for Diesel Contaminated Soils, Volume III. P.T. Kostecki, E.J. Calabrese, and C.P.L. Barkan, eds. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, MA. pp 89-96.

Journal and Proceeding Articles
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equialency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 002254.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008) Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, Volume 70 (2008) page 000527 Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (2007). “Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” Environmental Research. 105:194-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J., Hensley, A.R., and Suffet, I.H. 2007. “The Use Of An Odor Wheel Classification For The Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria For Compost Facilities” Water Science & Technology. 55(5): 345-357.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. 2006. “Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility.” The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006, August 21 – 25, 2006. Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2005. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Compost Facility Evaluations” The U.S. Composting Council’s 13th Annual Conference January 23 - 26, 2005, Crowne Plaza Riverwalk, San Antonio, TX.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Clark, J. J. and Suffet, I.H. 2004. “The Value Of An Odor Quality Classification Scheme For Urban Odor” WEFTEC 2004. 77th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference October 2 - 6, 2004, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Clark, J.J.J. 2003. “Manufacturing, Use, Regulation, and Occurrence of a Known Endocrine Disrupting Chemical (EDC), 2,4-Dichlorophnoxyacetic Acid (2,4-D) in California Drinking Water Supplies.” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Minneapolis, MN.

March 20, 2003.

Rosenfeld, P. and J.J.J. Clark. 2003. “Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity, and Regulatory Guidance” National Groundwater Association Southwest Focus Conference: Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants. Phoenix, AZ. February 21, 2003.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown A. 1999. Perchlorate Contamination: Fate in the Environment and Treatment Options. In Situ and On-Site Bioremediation, Fifth International Symposium. San Diego, CA, April, 1999.

Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Health Effects of Perchlorate and the New Reference Dose (RfD).

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Browne, T., Clark, J.J.J. 1998. Treatment Options For Perchlorate In Drinking Water.

Proceedings From the Groundwater Resource Association Seventh Annual Meeting, Walnut Creek, CA, October 23, 1998.

Clark, J.J.J., Brown, A., Rodriguez, R. 1998. The Public Health Implications of MtBE and Perchlorate in Water: Risk Management Decisions for Water Purveyors.

Proceedings of the National Ground Water Association, Anaheim, CA, June 3-4, 1998.

Clark J.J.J., Brown, A., Ulrey, A. 1997. Impacts of Perchlorate On Drinking Water In The Western United States. U.S. EPA Symposium on Biological and Chemical Reduction of Chlorate and Perchlorate, Cincinnati, OH, December 5, 1997.

Clark, J.J.J.; Corbett, G.E.; Kerger, B.D.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996.

Dermal Uptake of Hexavalent Chromium In Human Volunteers: Measures of Systemic Uptake From Immersion in Water At 22 PPM. Toxicologist. 30(1):14.

Dodge, D.G.; Clark, J.J.J.; Kerger, B.D.; Richter, R.O.; Finley, B.L.; Paustenbach, D.J. 1996. Assessment of Airborne Hexavalent Chromium In The Home Following Use of Contaminated Tapwater. Toxicologist. 30(1):117-118.

Paulo, M.T.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clark, J.J.J. (1992). Effects of Pretreatment with Ipratroprium Bromide in COPD Patients Exposed to Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A96.

Harber, P.H.; Gong, H., Jr.; Lachenbruch, A.; Clark, J.; Hsu, P. (1992). Respiratory Pattern Effect of Acute Sulfur Dioxide Exposure in Asthmatics. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 145(4):A88.

McManus, M.S.; Gong, H., Jr.; Clements, P.; Clark, J.J.J. (1991). Respiratory Response of Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease To Inhaled Ozone. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 143(4):A91.

Gong, H., Jr.; Simmons, M.S.; McManus, M.S.; Tashkin, D.P.; Clark, V.A.; Detels, R.; Clark, J.J. (1990). Relationship Between Responses to Chronic Oxidant and Acute

Ozone Exposures in Residents of Los Angeles County. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 141(4):A70.

Tierney, D.F. and J.J.J. Clark. (1990). Lung Polyamine Content Can Be Increased By Spermidine Infusions Into Hyperoxic Rats. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 139(4):A41.

EXHIBIT B

1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Alaura McGuire
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
13 February 2025
RE: PS Solar Project
Dear Ms. McGuire,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) states that the project would add 50 megawatts of photovoltaic solar generation from 160,000 ground-mounted solar panels and a 7-foot-tall security fence on 184 graded acres, and it would rezone 60 of another 236 acres of the project site from RL-5 to RS-1 residential development, all north of Two Mile Rd and west of Sunrise Rd in Twentynine Palms, California. My comments that follow address my concerns that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), supported by a biological technical report (Dudek 2025), mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate.

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

THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts specifies that such evaluation includes potential impacts to special-status species. However, an important policy of CEQA is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not

2 restricted to special-status species, but it also applies to wildlife populations and plant and animal communities. In fact, the CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species are forage, provisioners of refugia and nest substrates, and ecological mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which specialstatus species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.

All wildlife species should be of concern in a CEQA review, but the CEQA prioritizes special-status species. The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).

What follows is a summary of three site visits to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The surveys were also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most special-status species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity.

Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.

SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for

2.12 hours of daytime survey from 14:41 to 16:48 hours and for 2.08 hours of evening survey from 16:48 to 18:53 hours on 4 January 2026, and for 3.5 hours of daytime survey from 06:55 to 10:25 hours on 5 January 2026. During daylight, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars.

At night, Noriko affixed a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 25-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live. Sonobat Live identifies bats to species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members

3 flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.

Conditions were partly cloudy with 15MPH southwest wind and temperatures of 58-53° F on 4 January 2026, and sunny with 2 MPH south wind and temperatures of 45-55° F on 5 January 2026. The site is desert scrub dominated by creosote bush, white bursage, cholla, and Mojave yucca, and contains multiple washes (Photos 1-3).

Noriko saw coyote (Photo 4), Bell’s sparrow and black-throated sparrow (Photos 5 and 6), LeConte’s thrasher and Say’s phoebe (Photos 7 and 8), Mojave desert tortoise and house finch (Photos 9 and 10), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 23 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 6 species with special status (Table 1).

Photos 1
and 2. View
of a wash
(top), and
silver cholla
and creosote
bush
(bottom), on
the project
site, 5
January
2026. Photos
by Noriko
Smallwood.

4 Photos 3 and 4. Example of vegetation on site (top), and coyote on the project site (bottom), 5 January 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

5 Photos 5 and 6. Bell’s sparrow (left), and black-throated sparrow (right) on the project site, 5 January 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 7 and 8. LeConte’s thrasher (left), and Say’s phoebe (right) on the project site, 4 January 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

6 Photos 9 and 10. Scutes from a deceased Mojave desert tortoise (left), and house finch (right) on the project site, 5 January 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

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

Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.12 hours of daytime survey and

2.08 hours of evening survey on 4 January 2026, and during 3.5 hours of daytime survey on 5 January 2026.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Mojave desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii FT, CE Burrows and scutes Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Flew over
Eurasian collareddove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Just off site Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Flew over
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Foraged
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2
Common raven Corvus corax Flew over
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC Foraged
California horned lark
Eremophila alpestris
actia WL
LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei SSC1, BCC Sang
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus

7 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Black-throated
sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Sang
White-crowned
sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Just off site
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Foraged
Yellow-rumped
warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged
Black-tailed
jackrabbit Lepus californicus One observed
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Scat
White-tailed antelope
squirrel
Ammospermophilus
leucurus Burrows
Coyote Canis latrans Observed multiple on site
Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Hoof from dead deer
Kangaroo rat Dipodomys sp.

Burrows, observed
multiple in evening
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID =109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservationconcern-2021.pdf); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 23 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a large number for the brevity of her survey effort in a desert environment. All the species in Table 1 would lose habitat as the result of the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar developments on species richness and the abundances of wildlife. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) directly compared the species and the numbers of animals observed prior to development to the those observed after development, while they did the same at control sites. The measured losses of these species resulting from development is indicative of habitat loss, because habitat is defined as that portion of the environment that is used for survival and reproduction by members of a species (Hall et al. 1997), and this use is inferred by observations of the presence of a species (Smallwood 2002).

However, the species of wildlife that Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model I used is a logistic growth

8 model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey.

The models fit to Noriko’s survey data predict 28 diurnally active species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected in 8 hours of survey time during both of her surveys, or 7 to 14 more species than she detected in either survey (Figure 1). The rate of species detections in the morning survey were within the 95% confidence interval estimated from many other morning surveys we have completed in desert environments. The species richness of the project site is typical of relatively undisturbed desert environments.

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s visualscan surveys on 4–
5 January 2026.

Note the confidence
interval (orange)
applies only to the
morning survey
(red line).

Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 4 and 5 January 2026 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, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.

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

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected YAM 0.96 YPM 0.96
r2
95% CI 2019-2025 in region

9 set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.

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: 𝑅෠ = ଵ
ଵൗ௔ା௕×(ு௢௨௥௦)೎
, where 𝑅෠
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 18.5 species over my first 5.62 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass 5.62 hours to match the 5.62 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 32.4% 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 23 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her

5.62 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 32.4% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 23

0.324 ൗ = 71
species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 71 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 19 special-status species of mostly diurnally active vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 71 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 19 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance 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 her two surveys to produce an inventory of the project site’s wildlife community.

10 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.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅෠, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the 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 steps were taken, though not with sufficient rigor, and not interpreted in furtherance of an accurate characterization of the wildlife community.

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 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours) (95% CI)

11 information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. In the case of this project, many surveys were completed, but their findings were poorly interpreted.

Dudek (2025) conducted more wildlife surveys than I typically see of biological resource assessments in CEQA review. Dudek deserves credit for the effort, which resulted in detections of 33 species of vertebrate wildlife, including six special-status species.

Dudek (2025) fails, however, to report these 33 species in a comparative context, and it gives the false impression that what Dudek found was all there was to be found. In fact, despite the survey effort, many more species that comprise the wildlife community have yet to be detected. With an incomplete representation of the wildlife community, the DEIR is inaccurate in its characterization of the existing environmental setting.

Had Dudek (2025) reported which species were detected in which survey, then an analyst could have related the rate of accumulation of newly detected species with increasing survey effort, similar to the patterns shown in Figures 1 and 2. This step would have revealed the degree to which the local wildlife community had been represented by Dudek’s surveys. There should be no doubt that more species would be detected with more surveys, because Noriko’s brief survey effort added 10 species of vertebrate wildlife to those detected by Dudek, or 30% more. With Noriko’s surveys, the total number of species detected rises from Dudek’s 33 to a combined 43. But the dissimilarity of the species detected between Dudek’s biologists and Noriko is also indicative of many more species yet to be detected.

Dudek’s biologists detected 20 species that Noriko did not, and Noriko detected 10 species that Dudek’s biologist did not. The disparity in survey findings is large enough to question whether Dudek and Noriko surveyed the same wildlife community, even though they certainly did. Applying the Sørensen Index of 𝑆𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 = ଶ௖
௔ା௕
(Sørensen
1948), where a is the number of species found by Dudek (2025), b is the number of species found by Noriko, and c is the number of species found by both Dudek and Noriko, the Index of Similarity of the two wildlife communities is only 0.46 on a scale of 0 to 1. For perspective, the Index of Similarity measured among 40 sequentially compared 2-hour surveys I completed over three years, 2020-2023, at the same location in Rancho Cordova, California, averaged 0.755 with a high value of 0.90. An Index value of 0.46 between Dudek’s and Noriko’s survey findings is very low, and it is very low because the site has been insufficiently surveyed despite the 43 species detected.

In my experience it is unusual for a consultant’s field surveys in support of a CEQA review to detect 33 species of vertebrate wildlife in California deserts (Figure 3). And it is unusual for consultants to detect more than a few special-status species at a project site (Figure 4). In fact, Dudek detected nearly three times the mean number of vertebrate wildlife species, and three times the mean number of special-status species of wildlife (Figures 3 and 4). (In comparison, Noriko found 5 more vertebrate wildlife species than our average in the desert, and 2.33 more special-status species than our average in the desert (Figures 3 and 4)). The project site is special, as it supports more species than usual. It is therefore delinquent of Dudek to report its survey outcome without any form of comparative context.

12 Figure 3. Frequency distribution of the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by Noriko and I (right graph) among project sites that were surveyed in support of environmental reviews in California deserts.

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of the number of special-status species of wildlife detected by consulting biologists (left graph) and by Noriko and I (right graph) among project sites that were surveyed in support of environmental reviews in California deserts.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Vertebrate wildlife species detected
0 1
2 3
4 5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Vertebrate wildlife species detected
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7 Number of project sites
Consultants Smallwoods
PS Solar
PS Solar
= 12.6
= 18
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 1
2 3
4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife detected
Special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife detected Number of project sites
Consultants Smallwoods
= 2.1
= 3.67
PS Solar PS Solar

13 Three comparative contexts are needed. The first is to contextualize the survey findings relative to the survey effort, because otherwise it is misleading to insinuate that the species detected were definitive of the wildlife community. As Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate, the more one surveys, the more one finds of the wildlife community, but eventually to a point when the species inventory would be obtained. Dudek detected more species than reported in most survey efforts at proposed project sites, but it was nowhere close to reaching the species inventory. That Noriko could survey briefly and still add 10 more species to Dudek’s 33 species means that there are many more species yet to be detected. As I commented above, by analytically bridging Noriko’s survey data to a more extensive research survey effort, I predict 71 diurnal species of vertebrate wildlife, inclusive of 19 special-status species, and these are the tallies expected of diurnal surveys. Accounting for nocturnal species would increase these numbers substantially, as many mammals, reptiles and amphibians are active mostly at night.

The second comparative context is to compare the survey findings to survey findings from other sites of proposed projects or at sites that can serve as reference sites. Figures 3 and 4 exemplify this comparative context, as do the confidence intervals in Figures 1 and 2.

The third comparative context is to assess the probabilities of detection considering the survey effort of each special-status species, whether detected or not. Dudek (2025) reports having failed to detect most special-status species that could conceivably occur on the project site, but what do these failures to detect species really mean? Each species presents survey personnel with a unique range of detection probabilities, but the DEIR fails to discuss this, and instead gives the false impression that field surveys are equal in their ikelihoods to detect any and all species of vertebrate wildlife. For any given species, the likelihood it would be detected varies with survey effort and distance from known activity areas, among other factors. Many animals maintain home ranges that are larger than most project sites, and they periodically shift their foraging activities to various parts of their home range, hence occurring on a particular site only periodically. To detect these species, survey personnel must be at the site on the same date and time as the one or more members of the species. Therefore, the probability of detection during any given survey is less than 100%.

This third comparative context is very important because it is the basis for the formulation of detection survey protocols. Experienced biologists are aware of survey limitations due to ranges of variation in the activity periods, levels of crypticity, and periodic movement patterns of wildlife species, and due to variation in the skill and commitment of survey personnel. This third comparative context acknowledges that the occurrence likelihood of a species on a particular site is rarely if ever zero, so long as the site is within the species’ geographic range and it provides habitat. This third comparative context reveals that a determination of zero likelihood of occurrence is typically indicative of insufficient survey effort. A common goal of detection survey protocols is to support absence determinations with a survey effort that should have resulted in a detection if the species had been present at the time of the surveys, but it does not prove that the species is always absent from the site. This third comparative

14 context and its implications should not be neglected in CEQA review, but in the case of the DEIR prepared for this Project, it is entirely neglected.

In summary, Dudek (2025) detected an unusually large number of wildlife species on a California desert site, and with Noriko’s surveys 43 species of vertebrate wildlife have so far been detected there. That many more species occupy the project site is obvious in the patterns of the data collected by Noriko. It is delinquent of Dudek (2025) to have reported its findings without any comparative context to aid in interpretation. The DEIR should be withdrawn from public circulation until either a sufficient survey effort is completed or the results in hand are appropriately interpreted and reported.

Lastly, I note that the characterization of the burrowing owl survey outcome is inaccurate and misleading. According to the DEIR (p. 2.5-15), “Although the BSA contains open desert scrub areas that may support burrowing owls, this species was not observed during the focused burrowing owl surveys in 2024.” In fact, at least one pellet was found at the northwest corner of the project site. The burrow with the pellet(s) might have been just outside the project footprint, but it was within the biological study area (BSA). Dudek (2025:49) reports that “this burrow is located outside of the projectlevel impact area,” but it is in fact on the edge of Amboy Road, which is planned for widening. Any burrowing owls found within the BSA should be regarded as vulnerable to project impacts, because burrowing owls do not live only in a burrow.

It is also misleading of the DEIR (p. 2.5-23) to characterize the burrowing owl as “a transient species.” The burrowing owl is a colonial species (Smallwood and Morrison 2018, 2024) with a high degree of fidelity to nest sites (Martin 1973, Plumpton and Lutz 1993, Mealey 1997, Holmes et al. 2003). Moreover, it is unlikely that there exists any species of wildlife in California that can be accurately characterized as transient. The burrowing owl is certainly not a transient species.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The purpose of literature and database reviews 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. In the case of this project, the desktop review was incomplete, and the review that was completed was distorted to minimalize the likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species.

In its reporting of how it established the pool of special-status species for assessment of occurrence likelihoods, Dudek (2025) reports having queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for occurrence records within the 7.5’ Quadrangle and surrounding Quadrangles inclusive of the project site. eBird and iNaturalist are also cited by Dudek (2025), though it is unclear whether dudek queried these additional data bases for occurrence records for the purpose of establishing its list of species for further habitat assessment. Even had iNaturalist and eBird been used for this purpose, it would have been inappropriate to rule out species based on absences of occurrence records,

15 because positive-sighting databases are useful for confirming presence, but not for confirming absences of species. These types of databases are not designed for determining absences. 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 (2025) and hence the DEIR misuse the 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 the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighing occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.

And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without adequate support of field surveys.

In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 122 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. Of these 122 species, 9 were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 13 (11%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 46 (39%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 33 (27%) between 4 to 30 miles (In region). Over half (55%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least nine special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. Evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for these species.

Dudek (2025) considers the occurrence likelihoods of only 22 (18%) of the special-status species listed in Table 2, which means that 100 (82%) of the special-status species in Table 2 were screened out of the analysis in the first step of the desktop review. Of the 22 species assessed, Dudek (2025) determines seven of them to be “Not expected,” one of which has been recorded within 1.5 miles of the project site, and another species has

16 been recorded between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site. Of the 100 species omitted from further analysis by Dudek (2025), 4 have been documented on the project site, 11 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site, and 43 have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site. In summary, Dudek’s determinations of occurrence likelihoods comport only poorly with survey results and with available occurrence records in the region.

Dudek (2025) determines that golden eagle is not expected to occur, but a golden eagle in my GPS telemetry study visited the area about 10 years ago. eBird includes numerous records of golden eagle in the area. Dudek’s determination is inconsistent with the evidence.

Dudek (2025) determines that pallid bat has a low likelihood of occurrence due to the project site’s lack of rock outcrops. However, Noriko and I have detected pallid bat at multiple locations, including in the desert, and never that I can recall being located anywhere near a rocky outcrop. Speculation is a poor basis for determining occurrence likelihoods. It would have helped had Dudek conducted bat surveys.

Dudek (2025) determines that spotted bat has a low likelihood of occurrence due to the project site’s lack of rock outcrops. However, at the time of this writing, Noriko had detected spotted bat this very morning and the previous two mornings at a location nowhere near a rocky outcrop. Not enough is known about spotted bat ecology to determine its likelihood of occurrence at the project site. Dudek’s speculation is biased in favor of a low likelihood determination, because no such determination is supportable.

Dudek (2025) determines that western mastiff bat has a low likelihood of occurrence because “there are no cliffs with vertical drop-offs for roosting.” However, Noriko and I have detected western mastiff bat at several locations that were nowhere near cliffs of vertical drop-offs. The same speculation is applied to pocketed free-tailed bat, but Noriko and I have detected this species nowhere near rocks or cliffs.

Dudek (2025) determines that American badger has a low likelihood of occurrence because the nearest known location is 2.6 miles away. However, American badgers maintain home ranges that require travel distances much farther than 2.6 miles just to patrol the home range. The distance to the nearest occurrence record is no barrier to American badger occurrence on the project site. Based on my experience with badgers, the project site is highly likely to support the species.

Dudek (2025) determines that mountain lion is not expected to occur because “This species occurs in all habitats except xeric regions of the Mojave and Colorado Deserts, which do not support prey populations (e.g. mule deer, …” This is not true. First, mule deer occur on the project site, as Noriko detected the species there. Second, I surveyed for mountain lions throughout the Mojave Desert in 1985 and 1986, because there were many records of the species there. I detected mountain lions at multiple locations in the Mojave Desert in those years, though I have not repeated my survey efforts there since then. Dudek’s speculation is inaccurate.

17 Mischaracterization of the Wildlife Community
Dudek (2025) reports on field surveys and desktop review having been performed, but the field survey results are interpreted without any context to survey results from elsewhere, and the desktop review starts with an inappropriately small pool of specialstatus species after misusing the CNDDB. Dudek (2025) often resorts to speculation in its analyses of occurrence likelihoods, having not completed surveys appropriate to bats and fossorial small mammals or even to species more detectable in daytime reconnaissance surveys, and having committed too little survey effort overall.

Speculated habitat assessments are highly uncertain, which is inappropriate for precious or rare resources such as special-status species (National Research Council 1986). The true wildlife community remains to be described. Without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis is inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The impacts analysis in CEQA review involves prediction. Predictions are necessary because measuring a project’s impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and the timing of this type of measurement would come too late for the formulations of avoidance and minimization mitigation strategies that are prioritized by the CEQA. Impact predictions are necessary as part of the environmental review. The accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 5).

Figure 5. General flow of information from the gathering stage through the characterization of the existing environment to predictions of impacts and their significance.

Assess species occurrence likelihoods

1. Desktop review
a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover

2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment

3. Detection surveys for special-status species
Outcomes

5. Predict impacts

6. Formulate mitigation strategy

7. Determine significance of impacts
Characterize wildlife community

4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but
not yet detected, and any known trends
Note: Impact predictions and
significance determinations have
been of unknown accuracy in the
absence of experimental
measurement

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

Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potential
Dudek 2025
Database
records, Surveys
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Not expected In region Mojave desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii FT, CE On site/Observed Nearby/On site Mojave fringe-toed lizard Uma scoparia SSC Low In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Low In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Nearby
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Nearby
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Nearby
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In range
Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC Nearby
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In range Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC Nearby
Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Nearby
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC Nearby
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC Nearby
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Nearby
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region

Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
19 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potential
Dudek 2025
Database
records, Surveys
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Nearby American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP In range
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,

BOP, WL
Not expected Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA,
BOP
Nearby
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Nearby
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In range
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Nearby
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2,

BOP, CCE
Moderate Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Nearby
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC In region

American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site Very close 20 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potential
Dudek 2025
Database
records, Surveys
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Nearby
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Nearby
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Not expected In range Brown-crested flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus WL Nearby Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 On site/Observed Nearby Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Not expected In region Gray vireo Vireo vicinior SSC2 In region
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 On site/Observed Very close/On site Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC In region
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC Very close/On site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close/On site Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC In region
Black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura WL Very close Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei SSC3, BCC Low In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Nearby
LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei SSC1, BCC Nearby/On site Crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissale SSC3 In range
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Nearby
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Nearby
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In range/On site
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range

21 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potential
Dudek 2025
Database
records, Surveys
Southern California rufouscrowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL In range Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Nearby Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC Nearby
Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In range
Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2 Nearby
Hepatic tanager Piranga flava WL In range
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Nearby
California leaf nosed bat Macrotus californicus SSC, WBWG: H In range Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM 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 Nearby
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In range Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M Nearby
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H In range Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H Low In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG: H Low In range Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG: H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: H Low In region

22 Common name Species name Status1
Occurrence potential
Dudek 2025
Database
records, Surveys
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L In region Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M Low In range Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG:

MH
Not expected In range
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H Low In range San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In range
Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC Nearby
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti SSC In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Low Nearby
Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni CFP Not expected Nearby Mountain lion Puma concolor CCT Not expected In region
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; 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); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservationconcern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

23 Impact predictions can derive from speculation or from experience (Figure 6).

Speculation is repeatedly discouraged in the CEQA Guidelines, because speculation is an inconclusive guess or ponderance on a phenomenon without the benefit of data.

Prediction accuracy improves with experience, though the experience that can be brought to bear on impact predictions ranges from anecdotes to careful use of scientific inference. Inference is a conclusion derived logically from data that are available about a phenomenon. Any type of experience is usually better than relying on speculation, but careful scientific inference, especially inference drawn from experiments, has proven most effective. An analogy would be predicting the boiling temperature of water at a certain place with a known atmospheric pressure after having measured it hundreds of times at other places under various atmospheric pressures. The experience of measuring the boiling temperature at all these other places would certainly result in a more accurate prediction of the boiling point as compared to a speculative prediction. We know that use of inference in this example is certainly more predictive, and not potentially more predictive, because we have a long successful history with the application of this type of experimentation to draw predictive inference.

Figure 6. A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience.

The many projects that have undergone CEQA review provide a comparative basis for drawing inferences needed to predict the impacts of the next proposed project (Figure 6). Reconnaissance survey results that are not compared to survey results from other project sites miss the opportunity to interpret the results for the purpose of predicting Inference
Project site
Preconstruction
study
Predict
project impacts
Preconstruction
studies
Post-construction
studies
Pool of experience
Post-construction
study
Test predictions

24 impacts. The same is true of CDNNB occurrence records. For example, it would be helpful to know how often a species lacking CNDDB occurrence records on a site is nevertheless detected onsite by reconnaissance survey(s). It would be helpful to know how often the impact predictions of other projects are proven accurate, and how often the required mitigation measures are proven effective. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference over speculation and the blind confidence of simply repeating impact conclusions of unknown accuracy and mitigation strategies of unknown efficacy.

In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project inclusive of its RS-1 rezone, none of which are analyzed adequately in the DEIR, and some of which are not analyzed at all.

REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 43 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko and Dudek’s biologist(s) observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. Because Noriko’s surveys were only reconnaissance surveys conducted outside the breeding season, and therefore unsuitable for detecting all bird nests on the site, estimating total nest density of birds was not possible. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. There are several published estimates of total nest density in desert environments, as well as another estimate made by Noriko at Anza Borrego Desert State Park.

Noriko estimated 0.5 nests/acre on an 8-acre patch of desert scrub near Anza Borrego Desert State Park. Franzeb (1978) estimated a total nest density of 0.086 nests/acre in California’s southeastern desert environments, and Kozma and Mathews (1997) estimated total nest densities of 0.26 nests/acre in arroyos and 0.109 nests/acre on the uplands in the Chihuahuan Desert of New Mexico. The average of the above four estimates is 0.239 nests/acre. This density applied to the 224 acres of the project site would predict 54 nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 75 nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 218 fledglings/year at the project site.

The loss of 54 nest sites and 75 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 project would prevent the production of 218 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 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) = 245 birds per year lost to California.

25 The loss of 245 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 245 birds would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.

Productive capacity of LeConte’s thrashers lost to habitat destruction: Considering that LeConte’s thrashers are known to the project site after Noriko detected the species there, and considering that LeConte’s thrasher is a special-status species that has also been petitioned for listings under both California’s Endangered Species Act and the federal Endangered Species Act, it seems reasonable to predict the loss of productive capacity that would result from the proposed project. An Arizona Game and Fish Species Account reports an average density of 1.5 pairs per 1,000 acres, which would be 0.336 pairs across the project site on average. However, at another proposed solar site in the Arizona Desert, we detected three pairs on about 136 acres. Our density was at least 22 pairs of LeConte’s thrashers per 1,000 acres. Our density estimate translates to an estimate of 5 pairs of LeConte’s thrashers on the project site. Assuming this range of estimates is accurate, and assuming 1.39 nest attempts per nest site and 2.9 fledglings/nest attempt, then the equation from Smallwood (2022) would predict 1.5 to

22.7 LeConte’s thrashers would be lost annually due to the project’s destruction of habitat.

Numerical capacity of Lagomorphs lost to habitat destruction: Noriko saw black-tailed jackrabbits on the project site. The mean of two density estimates from similar environments in Wywialowski and Stoddart (1988) and Lightfoot et al. (2010) was 0.215 black-tailed jackrabbits per acre. Assuming this mean estimate is representative of the project site, I predict a lost numerical capacity of 48 black-tailed jackrabbits.

Noriko saw desert cottontail on the project site. Lightfoot et al. (2010) estimated 4 desert cottontails per ha in creosote shrubland with mesquite. This density applied to the project area would predict a lost numerical capacity of 260 desert cottontails.

Numerical capacity of Mojave Desert Tortoise lost to habitat destruction: Both Dudek and Noriko detected Mojave Desert tortoise on the project site. I therefore reviewed the literature for density estimates, and found that Allison and McLuckie (2010) reported estimates from multiple sites across multiple years. Density estimates from eight sites in 2004 averaged 5.46/km2. This density applied to the project area would estimate 4 Mojave Desert tortoises on the project site. The project, if it goes forward, can be expected to reduce the local numerical capacity of Mojave Desert tortoise by at least 4.

More would likely be lost due to the project’s interference with movement and by road mortality.

Numerical capacity of lizards lost to habitat destruction: Dudek (2025) detected multiple species of lizards on the project site. I therefore decided to assess the potential numerical impacts to lizards. Smolensky and Fitzgerald (2010) estimated the densities of all lizards within a study area, which summed to 85 lizards per hectare (ha).

26 Assuming this estimate is representative of the project site, applying this density to the project area would predict the lost numerical capacity of 5,951 lizards.

The numbers of lizards that I predict would no longer be available on the project site would profoundly affect meso-predators such as snakes, falcons and small- to mediumsized mammalian carnivores such as kit fox, coyote, and American badger. Every species that depends on lizards as forage would be adversely affected by the project. I also note that my predictions do not account for the greater net losses that would follow habitat fragmentation (Smallwood 2015).

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, this concern has not motivated any serious analysis of whether or how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. For example, the DEIR (p. 2.5-32) reports that the “The Solar Project is located within the General Plan’s designated Wildlife Linkage Area (Conservation and Open Space Element, Exhibit CO-3),” but had earlier (p. 2.5-15) explained, “The Project site is … located within the established habitat linkage areas for desert tortoise and burrowing owl that would allow for viable populations of smaller terrestrial species and/or species’ dispersal movements through the site and the vicinity.” To this point, the DEIR’s analysis makes sense, but on p. 2.5- 32, it speculates that “larger mammal species (e.g., bighorn sheep, mountain lion, bobcat) are not anticipated to use the BSA or immediate vicinity due to the openness of the site, which would not provide enough cover for these species (i.e., site lacks escape terrain for bighorn sheep, and rocky outcrops, dense brush, or steep terrain preferred by mountain lion and bobcats).” In fact, larger mammals occupy the site, as Noriko found material evidence of mule deer, and both Dudek and Noriko detected coyote on site.

The DEIR (p. 2.5-32) further speculates, “In addition, the BSA's limited connectivity (ACE Rank 1) does not qualify it as a significant regional wildlife corridor, and Project implementation would not disrupt regional migratory patterns given the abundance of surrounding undeveloped land for wildlife passage.” However, CDFW’s connectivity rankings are not definitive, as they are not based on measurements of wildlife movement. No measurements of wildlife movement have been made on the project site, as Dudek (2025) did not pursue an objective to characterize wildlife movement, nor did it implement any sort of study design or program of observation to do so. The DEIR lacks the necessary evidence to support a determination that the project’s impact on wildlife movement would be less than significant. The DEIR’s analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region is only speculative, which is an unsound basis for predicting project impacts. What is not speculative is the project’s destruction of between 184 and 224 acres of habitat that would normally support wildlife movement in the region. What is also not speculative is that the construction of a security fence that would be designed to block human movement onto the project site would also block wildlife movement. The project’s interference with wildlife movement across 184 to 224 acres of what is currently near-pristine habitat would easily qualify as a significant adverse impact.

27 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The DEIR neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic.

Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 11―14), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless be traversed by automobiles headed to or from the project’s building. 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 11. A desert cottontail runs across the road just in Murietta, California. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal.

28 Photo 12. A great-tailed grackle crosses a road in the Imperial Valley.

Photos 13 and 14. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and California kingsnake killed by a vehicle on a rural road in El Dorado County in 2024.

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

29 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 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 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 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 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 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% 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 4.4% 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 solar project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road in Contra Costa County 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.

The DEIR does not predict VMT for the construction of the solar project, but I used the number of trips times the miles per trip data in Table 5.3.1 of the Air Quality/GHG report (App. C) to calculate 366,048 VMT over 3 months of construction. This predicted construction VMT divided by 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality predicts 156 vertebrate wildlife fatalities.

The DEIR predicts 300 annual VMT for solar operations This predicted annual VMT would result in de minimis collision mortality.

30 Predicting residential project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife The DEIR predicts 3,565,301 annual VMT for 119 residences on the rezoned portion of the project site. This predicted annual VMT divided by 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality predicts 1,517 vertebrate wildlife fatalities.

Based on my analysis, the residential project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts on wildlife in addition to the wild animals predicted to be killed by traffic needed for solar construction. The DEIR does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that these impacts would be unmitigated.

COLLISION MORTALITY IN THE SOLAR PROJECT
Bird and bat collision mortality on PV panels
The DEIR’s conclusion regarding collision mortality is based on two fallacious arguments that are supported by selective referencing and speculation. According to the DEIR (p. 2.5-24), “The probability for migratory bird species to cross the site poses a potential hazard known as the “lake effect”. … Although located within the interior route region, no aquatic birds were detected in the vicinity nor were any observed flying over the site. … The BRTR concluded there is no evidence that the Solar Project would result in a reasonably foreseeable “lake effect” to migratory birds, and there are no known special status avian species, particularly water birds such as rails in the area that would be expected to be affected by a potential “lake effect.” Therefore, direct and indirect impacts to migratory and special status birds from the “lake effect” would be less than significant.” However, while the lake effect might be significant (Photos 15–18), most of the birds killed by PV panels in utility-scale solar settings are not birds known to inhabit aquatic environments (Smallwood 2022). This evidence suggests that most birds that fatally collide with solar panels are either locals or they are migrants flying low enough over the desert to collide with the panels. Most of the collisions likely occur at night.

Another fallacious argument of the DEIR is that aquatic birds do not fly over inland areas far from water bodies. In fact, they do. Many aquatic bird collision victims have been documented at PV solar projects in the Mojave Desert, far from water. Again, the Lake Effect might be a factor, but other causal factors must also account for many of the collisions, because many of the birds that collide with PV panels are songbirds and raptors and other species in addition to water birds. I found collision mortality with solar panels to be highest for mourning doves, horned larks, western meadowlarks, American coots, soras, burrowing owls, American kestrels, and many small bird species including yellow warblers (Smallwood 2022). At the project site, Dudek and Noriko observed mourning doves, horned larks, burrowing owls, and American kestrels.

31 Based on fatality searches in utility-scale solar projects in California, Smallwood (2022) estimated a weighted mean 11.61 (95% CI = 8.37–17.56) birds and 0.06 (95% CI = 0.01–

0.10) bats per MW per year. Applying these rates to the proposed 50 MW of solar panels would predict 581 (95% CI = 419−878) bird collision fatalities per year and 3 (0.5−5) bat collision fatalities per year.

Photos 15 and 16. Smudge marks on solar panel (left) where western grebe collided with the panel and fell to the ground where it was photographed (right) at the Desert Sunlight Solar Project.

Photos 17 and 18. The location (left) where an endangered Yuma clapper rail was found dead (right) in the Desert Sunlight Solar Project.

32 Bird and bat collision mortality with perimeter security fences Cyclone fencing is known to kill wildlife via collision and entanglement (Photos 19 and 20), so it is important to disclose the length of security fencing. The DEIR discloses the length of the 7-foot-tall cyclone fence that would surround the solar project in Exhibit 1- 7, from which I estimate 4.64 km of fencing. Recent fatality monitoring along fences of utility-scale solar projects in California provides the basis for predicting avian mortality that would be caused by the project’s fence (Smallwood 2022). The greater roadrunner experienced particularly high mortality along security fences. I also found collision mortality with fencing at solar projects to be highest for canyon bats, western meadowlarks, northern flickers, burrowing owls, yellow-headed blackbirds and northern harriers (Smallwood 2022). At the project site, Dudek (2025) and Noriko detected greater roadrunner and burrowing owl.

Based on a weighted mean 14.435 (95% CI: 10.880–20.339) birds and 2.56 (95% CI:

0.17–6.54) bats per km per year along fences of California’s solar projects, the project’s

4.64 km of fence would likely kill 67 (95% CI: 50–94) birds per year, and 12 (95% CI:

0.8–30) bats per year. It is my opinion that this predicted level of mortality would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.

Bird and bat collision mortality with combined PV panels and fences: If the project was to go forward as planned, I predict it would kill 648 (95% CI: 469–972) birds per year and 15 (95% CI: 1.3–35) bats per year due to collisions with PV panels and security fencing.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects, or to multiple types of impacts that are cumulatively considerable.

Unfortunately, the DEIR’s cumulative impacts analysis is flawed. The DEIR (p. 2.5-50) argues, “As is the case with the proposed Project, other future projects will be required to comply with the regional and local ordinances designed to protect biological resources and will be required to conduct site-specific biological resource assessments and surveys. These surveys will include mitigation measures designed to reduce each project’s impacts, and will effectively mitigate any incremental impact on biological resources. Future preservation of open space lands, purchases of mitigation bank land, and similar measures will be imposed as impacts are identified. For this reason, Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.” In other words, the DEIR argues that there are never any cumulative impacts because all projects comply with regional and local ordinances, and all implement mitigation measures. If this argument is true, then the CEQA should not require cumulative impacts analysis.

33 Photo 19. A great-horned owl
died after becoming entangled
on the razor wire placed on top
of this cyclone fence surrounding
a substation in Alameda County.

Photo by Joanne Mount.

Photo 20. Fledgling house
finch that fatally collided
with a security fence, 26
June 2022. Photo by Noriko
Smallwood.

34 However, the DEIR’s argument is not true. Despite the regional and local ordinances and the required mitigation measures, wildlife have continued to decline (e.g., Rosenberg et al. 2019, Miller 2024). Noriko and I performed an experiment to measure the effects – including cumulative effects – of projects that had to comply with permits, existing regulations, and required project mitigation. We revisited project sites we had earlier surveyed as experts 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 to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts on wildlife.

Nevertheless, 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%. We reported that “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 the mitigation measures, permits, policies, regulations, and habitat plans. The DEIR’s claim that project compliance with ordinances and required mitigation measures would avoid cumulative impacts on wildlife has been soundly refuted.

Furthermore, the DEIR’s argument that compliance with ordinances and required mitigation measures would avoid cumulative impacts on wildlife fails to consider the spatial scale at which reasonably foreseeable development in the region would affect habitat connectivity and corridor function. This consideration of the appropriate scale goes to the heart of CEQA’s requirement for analysis of cumulative impacts. If the ordinances and mitigation measures insufficiently conserve the capacities for wildlife to move across the region, then compliance with them would not necessarily avoid or even minimize a project’s interference with wildlife movement in the region or its contributions to cumulative impacts.

FLAWED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy needs to be based on a sound understanding of the existing wildlife community. It needs to be known which species occur or are likely to occur on the project site as well as the nature of their occurrences. Are the occurrences of resident species? Migratory? For special-status species, detection surveys should have been performed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of absence. Surveys should have been performed to understand how wildlife use the site in their movement patterns. And what was found of wildlife species needs to be carefully interpreted by comparing the findings to the findings from other survey efforts at other sites. Failures to detect species should be interpreted relative to the probabilities of their detections given the survey effort. The mitigation strategy needs to follow the steps under Assess

35 species occurrence likelihoods and Characterize wildlife community, followed by Step 7:

Predict impacts (Figure 5). However, the DEIR’s mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps.

My comments follow in regular font with the summary in italics of each of the DEIR’s required mitigation measures.

BIO-1 Construction-Related and Operational-Related Indirect Impacts to Biological Resources. For each phase of project implementation, including solar decommissioning activities, suitable habitat for special-status species (i.e., all undeveloped land or re-naturalized land within the project site) with potential to occur in the project, the project’s Applicant/Developer shall include the following in the construction contractor’s plans and specifications to address indirect constructionrelated impacts to special-status species:
• Biological Monitoring. … monthly checks … to inspect construction fencing, ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat, species of concern, and other sensitive biological resources outside the project footprint, and ensure that all applicable requirements from the mitigation measures are being upheld.

If the project goes forward, biological monitoring should be implemented, but its conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to project impacts. This measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.
• Worker Environmental Awareness Training. …
If the project goes forward, WEAT should be implemented, but its conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to project impacts. This measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.

It needs to be remembered that construction workers operate heavy machinery and otherwise work around heavy machinery and moving vehicles. Workers need to be aware primarily of their construction work performance and their safety. It is misleading to imply that a measure entitled Worker Environmental Awareness Training is going to result in increased worker vigilance for any mouse or lizard in harm’s way.

This is not what should be expected or desired of construction workers. • Delineation of Property Boundaries. ... • Standard Dust Control Measures. … • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. ... • Minimize Spills of Hazardous Materials. ... • Invasive Weeds. ... • Noise. Proposed noise-generating land uses affecting suitable habitat for special-status species shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. ... • Lighting. All construction activities shall be conducted during the daytime, and lights shall not be kept on overnight in the construction area. While night lighting is not currently proposed, if it

36 is required for security purposes during construction activities or operational activities, all exterior lighting along undeveloped land shall be fully shielded and directed downward in a manner that will prevent light spillage or glare into the adjacent avoidance areas. …
If the project goes forward, all these measures should be implemented, but their conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to project impacts. These measures would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.
• Fencing. The solar array site shall include a 7-foot-high perimeter fence upon completion of construction and through the duration of operation to minimize the impact on sensitive or special-status biological resources occurring adjacent to the site.

Fencing is not a suitable mitigation measure, and although the wording of this measure states that fencing would minimize impacts on biological resources, it fails to explain how it would do so; it fails to explain which impacts on which species would be minimized by fencing. In fact, fencing is a source of impacts on wildlife. Fencing at other solar projects has been found to kill many birds and bats due to collisions and entanglement (Smallwood 2022).

BIO-2 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. If construction or solar decommissioning activities must occur during the migratory bird nesting season (typically January 1 through July 31), an avian nesting survey of the Project site and within 500 feet of all impact areas must be conducted to determine the presence/absence of fully protected species, protected migratory birds, and active nests. The avian nesting survey shall be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist within 72 hours prior to the start of construction in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, 3503.5, and 3513). If an active bird nest is found, the nest shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with appropriate buffer established around the nest, which shall be determined by the biologist based on the species’ sensitivity to disturbance (typically 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors and special status species). ...

If the project goes forward, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be implemented, but this measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys should consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful, these types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species. To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site would require a much greater survey effort than can be accomplished in the allotted timespan. Many bird nests would be missed.

37 I predict the project site supports 54 nest sites in the average year, and this number does not include those that would need to be located within the defined buffer areas beyond the project site’s boundary. Even assuming all these nests could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there would be no further production of birds from the project site. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis compared to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds.

Furthermore, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

Lastly, the mitigation language includes the requirement that the preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist, and this requirement carries over to determinations of the buffer areas and buffer timing to avoid take caused by construction activities. Undefined, however, is what qualifies as a “qualified wildlife biologist” in these contexts. As mentioned earlier in this letter, Noriko Smallwood and I have been conducting surveys over the past several years to estimate total nest density, which is relevant to a preconstruction, take-avoidance survey because our surveys were likewise directed to all bird species that could be concurrently nesting on a site.

Searching for the nests of one species is difficult, but searching for nests of all bird species at once is vastly more difficult. For this reason, there are very few published estimates of total nest density, and there are very few wildlife biologists who have experience with surveys for the nest attempts of all bird species on a given site. A technical way to qualify a wildlife biologist for the tasks outlined in this measure would be to obtain an agency Memorandum of Understanding in which the biologist is named and said to be qualified for conducting the preconstruction survey and for determining the take-avoidance buffer area and timing. However, a more compelling means of qualifying the biologist would be to require that the biologist had achieved (1) a minimum number of degree-units in ornithology, and either experience with these tasks (2) over a minimum number of years, or (3) over a minimum number of projects under a qualified mentor. I suggest these criteria because I am not aware of any guidelines or protocol for performing these tasks, and that include a description of what would qualify a biologist for implementing them. Without a better definition of what is a qualified wildlife biologist in the contexts of these tasks, BIO-2 lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

BIO-3 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys and Avoidance. One preconstruction Burrowing Owl survey shall be completed no more than 14 days before initiation of site preparation or grading or solar decommissioning activities and a second survey shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of site preparation or grading or decommissioning activities. … If Burrowing Owls are detected, and if impacts to Burrowing Owls cannot be feasibly avoided, the Project applicant will consult with CDFW and obtain appropriate take authorization from the CDFW through the CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) process. If requiring an ITP,

38 mitigation for direct impacts to Burrowing Owl shall be fulfilled through compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the Project, or as otherwise determined through the ITP process.

If the project goes forward, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls should be implemented, but its conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to project impacts. This measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.

Because the burrowing owl is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, consultation with the CDFW needs to begin before any surveys are conducted, not afterwards as written. Even if no burrowing owls are detected, the loss of foraging habitat would need to be mitigated. Take of a candidate species is not allowed without in incidental take permit from the CDFW.

BIO-4 Pre-Construction Survey for Desert Kit Fox and Avoidance. A preconstruction survey for Desert Kit Fox shall be conducted within 10 days before initiation of site preparation or grading activities to determine the presence/absence of Desert Kit Fox. If the Desert Kit Fox is detected, a Desert Kit Fox Relocation and Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW, and shall be implemented including protective measures such as the establishment of no disturbance buffer zones for active den and active natal den. ...

If the project goes forward, a preconstruction survey should be implemented for desert kit fox, but its conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to project impacts.

This measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality during project operations.

BIO-5 Desert Tortoise Avoidance and Minimization Measures. Relocation and/or take of a desert tortoise may not occur without consultation with the USFWS and CDFW.

On 23 October 2025, e-group and Dudek applied to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for an incidental take permit for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) and desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Attainment of this incidental take permit would allow for the translocations of desert tortoise off the project site. However, translocations could cause more harm than conservation benefit, as the history of desert tortoise translocations indicates more harm.

Whereas Drake et al (2012) found that translocating desert tortoises does not increase their stress hormones, and whereas Dickson et al. (2019) and Nussear et al. (2012) found no significant difference in survivorship between translocated and nontranslocated desert tortoises, mortality was higher among translocated juveniles as compared to translocated adults (Dickson et al. 2019, Berry et al. 2010), and habitat features can influence survivorship of translocated desert tortoise (Nafus et al. 2017). Of special concern related to the project site, Berry et al. (2010) found that predation of

39 translocated desert tortoise was more frequent near human populations. Mack and Berry (2022) found that of the 158 translocated desert tortoise they monitored from 2008 to 2018, only 17.72% survived, and they deemed this translocation project unsuccessful. Moreover, translocations likely cause harm to the desert tortoises in the receiving areas.

In a population comprised of resident and translocated desert tortoises, none of the translocated males had offspring, and all offspring were from residents (Mulder et al. 2017). However, the long lifespans of desert tortoises have likely left important impacts unquantified among resident populations that have received translocated desert tortoises from utility-scale solar projects.

BIO-5 Desert Tortoise Avoidance and Minimization Measures.… if tortoises or fresh sign are observed during project construction, all activities that could result in take of desert tortoise shall cease immediately until an authorized biologist can confirm that no desert tortoise is present or the desert tortoise moves off the site on its own under the supervision of a qualified biologist.

Desert tortoise exclusion fencing shall be installed around all construction areas prior to the initiation of vegetation clearing. Once the area is fenced, desert tortoises shall be removed from the area by the authorized biologist if the appropriate state and federal permits have been obtained. … After installing the fence, and before any other activities occur within the fenced area, the authorized biologist shall survey the site for desert tortoises. … The WEAP required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1 shall also include … [a list of information about desert tortoises, who would have authority over them during construction, and speed limits, etc.]. …
If the project goes forward, all aspects of this measure should be implemented, but its conservation benefits would be de minimis relative to project impacts. This measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality with automobiles that would ensue during project operations.

BIO-6 Desert Tortoise Habitat Compensatory Mitigation. The project applicant shall implement habitat mitigation for 142.1± acres of permanent impacts to occupied desert tortoise habitat. Impacts are to be compensated at a minimum 1:1 ratio either through one or a combination of the following: Option 1: Purchase of offsite habitat mitigation lands that contain suitable habitat for desert tortoise. Option 2:

Purchase of mitigation credits at a mitigation bank for desert tortoise.

The applicant shall submit a document outlining the permanent impacts to desert tortoise habitat, along with a compensatory mitigation plan, to the USFWS and CDFW for review and approval. The Project applicant shall also be required to obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the CDFW and USFWS where the ITP includes an analysis of whether Project impacts would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, provide suitable avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts, and adequately mitigate through conservation or mitigation banking.

Unavoidable impacts to occupied suitable habitat shall be compensated at a minimum

40 of 1:1, as described above, in addition to implementing all other measures and condition of the ITPs. This mitigation measure would also be applied in the event of future construction of roads subject to the future road dedications.

The Mojave desert tortoise is in rapid decline (Allison and McLuckie 2018), so its mitigation ratio ought to be much greater than 1:1. A 5:1 ratio would better ensure no net loss of the species. Furthermore, the basis of the mitigation needs to be greater than 142.1 acres, which fails to equal the size of the solar project. The basis needs to be no smaller than 224 acres, which would be the extent of the PV solar project and the residential development.

NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Compensatory Habitat Protection: The project would destroy the productive capacity of the project site for birds, mammals, and reptiles. The loss of this capacity would need to be offset by compensatory mitigation as near to the site as possible. I recommend a 5:1 mitigation ratio to achieve a no net loss standard.

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

Wildlife overcrossings and under-crossings have been built and tested for wildlife use.

Strategic fencing and speed controls have also been implemented, as speed is an important factor to wildlife mortality (Illner 1992). Evidence is now available to also plan roads without vegetated medians to minimize animal mortality (Keilsohn et al. 2018).

Collision Mortality on PV Panels and Security Fencing: Compensatory mitigation would be needed for animals lost to collision mortality. To inform this mitigation, the project should undergo scientific monitoring of collision mortality. The monitoring should start prior to construction in order to establish a baseline to which post-construction searches can be compared. To more accurately estimate collision mortality and the effects of habitat loss, I offer the following suggestions for characterizing the existing wildlife community so that it can be compared to the wildlife community post-construction:

1. Establish two or more reference sites in similar vegetation and terrain settings but located sufficiently far from the project footprint to minimize the effects of displaced wildlife from the project;

2. Duplicate all survey methods between the project site and the reference sites;

3. Select indicator species for survey focus, but enough of the species to robustly represent the wildlife community – representative species of lizards, snakes,

41 kangaroo rats, ground squirrels, lagomorphs, mammalian carnivora, bats, and birds of different types;

4. Implement sampling and counting methods that are appropriate to the species and using personnel who are qualified on the species, e.g., use thermal-imaging and acoustic detectors to survey for bats, and live-trapping to survey for small mammals;

5. Sample to sufficiently represent the wildlife community in each season of the year;

6. Implement periodic early-morning reconnaissance surveys or at least 1-hour duration to record detections of vertebrate wildlife species, whereby each new species detection is recorded along with the time into the survey;

7. Deliver data to an analyst on a weekly basis to ensure that the data are understood and any questions about the data are quickly resolved;

8. Share data and reports publicly and require peer-review by independent party.

To begin to understand causal factors of collision mortality, I recommend the following framework for behavior surveys that would aim to inform of causal factors via rates of certain risky behaviors and collisions and collision near-misses:

1. Use behavioral ecologists to either perform behavior surveys or to train the biologists who would perform the surveys;

2. Perform ≥1-hour visual scan surveys focused on each sampling plot searched by scent-detection dogs per fatality monitoring;

3. Record positions of behavior survey stations;

4. Alter start times randomly from dawn until dusk, but not while the fatality searchers are on the plot;

5. Limit observations to 300 m from the observer;

6. Record observations into a handheld digital voice recorder, which are to be transcribed to an electronic spreadsheet later the same day;

7. Record significant events to handheld printed photo-maps of the plot, where significant events include collisions, near-misses and other reactions to project elements, as well as uses made of project elements by birds (perching, nesting);

8. Record species of birds visiting the plot, flock size, behavior, height above ground, flight path (record on map) and time on plot;

9. Record wind speed and direction, temperature and weather conditions at beginning and end of each survey;

10. Digitize data recorded on photo-map for spatial analysis using GIS;

11. See methods in Smallwood (2017b).

To more accurately estimate collision mortality, I offer the following suggestions for fatality searches (also see Smallwood 2022), including best practices:

1. Keep it simple;

2. Have a plan and a budget for responding to the discoveries of injured wildlife;

3. Ask solar company employees to leave carcasses alone;

4. Search all of the solar arrays in the project, or a substantial randomized sample or a systematic sample with random starting points;

42 5. Delineate unsearchable areas due to hazards, dense vegetation or other factors;

6. Use scent-detection dogs with skilled handlers (Smallwood et al. 2020), either off-leash to achieve detection rates of available carcasses (i.e., those not removed by scavengers yet) of 50% to 60%, or on-leash to achieve detection rates >90%;

7. Implement no more than one search interval, i.e., number of days between searches, but the search interval should be a targeted average rather than a strict time to provide flexibility to the scent-detection dog team;

8. Minimum monitoring duration should be 3 years;

9. Refrain from performing ‘clearing searches’ because they’re ineffective and unnecessary (Smallwood 2017a;

10. Upon discovery of feathers, stop and search increasingly larger circles to determine whether more feathers can lead to the carcass;

11. Integrate carcass detection trials into routine fatality monitoring by randomly placing just-thawed, fresh-frozen carcasses of appropriate bird and bat species onto the search areas at a rate of about 2.3 g/ha/year, where appropriate species means those likely to be killed by features of the project and include the full range of body sizes (Smallwood et al. 2018);

12. In carcass detection trials, place many more of the smallest birds and bats because detections of those trial carcasses are necessary but more rarely achieved;

13. Mark trial carcasses discreetly and safely with regard to scavengers – snipping toes and the ends of flight feathers works well, or one foot of each bat;

14. Weigh trial carcasses just prior to placement;

15. Keep searchers blind to the trial placements by using a disciplined trial administrator who places carcasses while searchers are not onsite and who leaves no obvious evidence of each visit other than the carcass itself;

16. Upon placement, drop each trial carcass from waist height, and then photograph and map the location with high-end GPS and take notes of the location, e.g., 10 cm east of white pebble and 2 m north of 1-m long north-south oriented stick, or 2 m west of PV panel number X;

17. Leave all fatality and trial carcasses in the field, thereafter monitoring subsequent detections of the same carcasses;

18. All carcasses in integrated trials are either found or not found, so do not attempt to separate trials for searcher detection and carcass persistence;

19. Count fatalities discovered incidentally to routine fatality monitoring, including those found beyond the maximum search radius of a sampled unit, but omit those found at units not selected for sampling (if sampling was used instead of census);

20.Map and photograph all fatalities and trial carcasses every time they are detected;

21. Enter data into electronic spreadsheet daily and share data with supervisor no less often than weekly to identify and resolve problems in a timely manner;

22.Identify all remains to species, so include sufficient budget for visiting museums or experts to achieve this objective (every species misidentification adds error to two species – to the species misidentified and to the species not identified);

23.See Smallwood et al. (2018) for details on how to use the data in a simple estimator;

24.Repeat the monitoring effort 10 years after the first monitoring effort;

43 25. Share data and reports publicly and require peer-review by independent party.

Finally, I recommend the establishment of a policy of improving estimation accuracy whenever opportunities to do so arise. This policy would require that methods be adjusted or changed to accommodate greater accuracy, and it would disallow a pervasive approach of clinging to less accurate methods because they are industry-standard methods or said to be more comparable. Inaccurate estimates are not more comparable.

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation is needed, and it ought to also 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 during construction and by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project site during project operations.

Landscaping: If the residential portion of 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 important 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 threatened 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 it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020).

Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

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

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

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

44 Allison, L. J. and A. M. McLuckie. 2018. Population trends in Mojave Desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 13(2):433–452.

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.

Dickson, B. G., Scherer, R. D., Kissel, A. M., Wallace, B. P., Langin, K. M., Gray, M. E., Scheib, A. F. and Weise, B. 2019. Multiyear monitoring of survival following mitigation-driven translocation of a long-lived threatened reptile. Conservation Biology, 33(5), pp.1094-1105.

Dudek. 2025. Biological Resources Technical Report E-Group PS Solar Project. Report to K & L Gates LLP, Seattle, Washington.

Esque, T. C., Nussear, K. E., Drake, K. K., Walde, A. D., Berry, K. H., Averill-Murray, R.

C., Woodman, A. P., Boarman, W. I., Medica, P. A., Mack, J. and Heaton, J. S. 2010.

Effects of subsidized predators, resource variability, and human population density on desert tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert, USA. Endangered Species Research, 12(2), pp.167-177.

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.

Franzeb, K. E. 1978. Breeding bird densities, species composition, and bird species diversity of the Algodones Dunes. Western Birds 9:9-20.

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
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

45 Holmes, A. L., Green, G. A., Morgan, R. L. and Livezey, K. B. 2003. Burrowing owl nest success and burrow longevity in north central Oregon. Western North American Naturalist 63: 244-250.

Illner, H. 1992. Road deaths of Westphalian owls: methodological problems, influence of road type and possible effects on population levels. Pp. 94-100 in C. A. Galbraith, I. R. Taylor, and S. Percival, eds. The ecology and conservation of European owls.

Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee, UK Nature Conservation No.

5. Keilsohn, W., D. L. Narango, and D. W. Tallamy. 2018. Roadside habitat impacts insect traffic mortality. Journal of Insect Conservation https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841- 018-0051-2
Kozma, J. M. and N. E. Mathews. 1997. Breeding bird communities and nest plant selection in Chihuahuan Desert habitats in south-central New Mexico. Wilson Bulletin 109:424-436.

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

Lightfoot, D. C., D. Davidson, C. M. McGlone, and D. G. Parker. 2010. Rabbit abundance relative to rainfall and plant production in Northern Chihuahuan Desert grassland and shrubland habitats. North American Naturalist 70:490-499.

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.

Mack, J. S. and Berry, K. H. 2023. Drivers of survival of translocated tortoises. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 87(2), p.e22352.

Martin, D. J. 1973. Selected aspects of Burrowing Owl ecology and behavior. The Condor 75:446–456.

Mealey, B. 1997. Reproductive ecology of the burrowing owls, Speotyto cunicularia floridana, in Dade and Brower Counties, Florida. Raptor Research Report 9: 74-79.

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

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

46 Mulder, K. P., Walde, A. D., Boarman, W. I., Woodman, A. P., Latch, E. K. and Fleischer, R.C. 2017. No paternal genetic integration in desert tortoises (Gopherus agassizii) following translocation into an existing population. Biological Conservation, 210, pp.318-324.

Nafus, M. G., Esque, T. C., Averill-Murray, R. C., Nussear, K. E. and Swaisgood, R. R. 2017. Habitat drives dispersal and survival of translocated juvenile desert tortoises. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54(2), pp.430-438.

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.

Nussear, K. E., Tracy, C. R., Medica, P. A., Wilson, D. S., Marlow, R. W. and Corn, P. S. 2012. Translocation as a conservation tool for Agassiz's desert tortoises:
survivorship, reproduction, and movements. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(7), pp.1341-1353.

Plumpton, D. L., and R. S. Lutz (1993). Nesting habitat use by Burrowing Owls in Colorado. Journal of Raptor Research 27:175–179.

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

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

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

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

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

Smallwood, K. S. 2017b. 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. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.

47 Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2024. Burrowing owls require mutualist species and ample interior habitat space. Diversity 2024, 16, 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090590
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

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

Smolensky, N. L. and L. A. Fitzgerald. 2010. Distance sampling underestimates population densities of dune-dwelling lizards, Journal of Herpetology 44(3):372-381.

Sørensen, 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.

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

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.

Wywialowski, A. P, and Stoddart, L. C. 1988. Estimation of jack rabbit density:
methodology makes a difference. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:57-59.

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

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
Business Smallwood Ecology
• Employs Noriko Smallwood, M.S., Environmental Science with focus on wildlife Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with anthropogenic infrastructure and activities;
• Design of field study to detect, enumerate, or monitor wildlife and behavior patterns by visual search, GPS, thermal imaging, and acoustic bat survey;
• Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns from that can inform conservation and management of terrestrial wildlife.

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
 1,068 professional reports, including:
 96 peer reviewed publications
 24 in non-reviewed proceedings
 946 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
 8 in mass media outlets
 98 public presentations of research results
Expert testimony regarding potential impacts from development projects: To check on the accuracy of the characterization of wildlife communities at sites of proposed residential, commercial and industrial projects, I perform visual-scan surveys for wildlife, thermal-imaging at night, and acoustic detection of bats using a Petterson M500 detector and Sonobat Live to identify bats by

Smallwood CV 2
sonograms of their calls. I predict project impacts and I compare my findings to those in the environmental review documents. I also testify on potential outcomes of water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Communities Conservation Programs, proposed Federal Rules and State and Federal policies and regulations affecting wildlife. I deliver oral testimony to government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. I prepare expert witness reports and court declarations, and I participate with depositions.

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 it advised the County on how to reduce wildlife collision mortality.

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.

Smallwood CV 3
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Professor Shu Geng and Dr. 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 based on ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species.

Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.

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

Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a database 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 method for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.

Projects and Studies
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 collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists

Smallwood CV 4
performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. I also collaborated, and continue to collaborate with, Dr. Douglas Bell in a GPS telemetry study of 44 golden eagles originating from the northern Diablo Range. The goal was to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. I performed focused behavior surveys from May 2012 through 2019, and golden eagle telemetry monitoring from 2013 through the present. Collision hazard models were prepared for eight wind projects, three of which were built.

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

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.

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

Smallwood CV 5
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.

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 management in China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the

Smallwood CV 6
Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess opportunities for research collaboration in the environmental and agricultural sectors.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2025. On the Spatial distribution of eagle carcasses around wind turbines: implications for collision mortality estimation. Diversity 2025, 17, 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17100686

Smallwood CV 7
Smallwood, K. S. 2025. Background Mortality of Wildlife on Renewable Energy Projects. Diversity 2025, 17, 628. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17090628
Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2024. Burrowing owls require mutualist species and ample interior habitat space. Diversity 2024, 16, 590. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090590 Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.

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

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

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding density and collision mortality of 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. 2020a. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020b. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities.

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

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 CV 8
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.

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

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

Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4.

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

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

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225.

Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913.

Smallwood CV 9
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915-943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915
Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus epizootic on yellow-billed magpie, american crow, and other birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247- 254.

Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of behavior on bird mortality in wind energy developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Smallwood CV 10
Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA.

Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640.

Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates.

Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161.

Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A sustainable agroecological solution to water shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355.

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

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

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

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

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 93-109.

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

Restoration Ecology 9:253-261.

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

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

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

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

Environmental Conservation 26:102-111.

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

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

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183.

Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density.

Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82.