The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-01-2024_Open Session_Item 01_Yundt, Victoria_Redacted plus attachment Via E-mail May 1, 2024 Helen Tran, Mayor Fred Shorett, Mayor Pro Tem Theodore Sanchez, Council Member Sandra Ibarra, Council Member Juan Figueroa, Council Member Ben Reynoso, Council Member Kimberly Calvin, Council Member Damon L. Alexander, Council Member City Council City of San Bernardino 201 N. E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 publiccomments@sbcity.org Travis Martin, Planner Community & Economic Development Department City of San Bernardino 201 N. E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 Martin_tr@sbcity.org Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project – May 1, 2024 City Council Agenda Item 1 Dear Mayor Tran, Mayor Pro Tem Shorett, Honorable San Bernardino City Council Members, and Mr. Martin: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project, including all actions related or referring to the proposed demolition of two onsite warehouse distribution buildings, and construction of a single new distribution warehouse totaling approximately 89,475 square feet located at 791 South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino (“Project”). The Project is scheduled to be heard as Agenda Item 1 at the May 1, 2024 City Council meeting. After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude that there is a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental impacts that have not been mitigated. Therefore, we request that the City of San Bernardino (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. This Project will add another industrial warehouse in a community that is already plagued by warehouses. SAFER is concerned that Waterman Avenue would become a “corridor of warehouses” like Central Avenue already has. Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 2 of 13 SAFER previously submitted comments to the City regarding the MND and Project on April 28, 2022 and July 11, 2022. The April 28, 2022 comments were prepared with the assistance of expert consulting firm RK Engineering and expert wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. The July 11, 2022 comments were prepared with the assistance of environmental consulting firm Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) and noise and vibration expert Deborah Jue of the firm Wilson Ihrig. SAFER’s April 28, 2022 and July 11, 2022 comments and the accompanying expert comments are attached as Attachment C and D While the comments were based on the Draft MND, they are equally applicable to the Final MND. Dr. Smallwood and Ms. Jue provided additional comments regarding the Project and MND and in response to comments by Adkan Engineers, which are attached hereto as Attachment A and B. LEGAL STANDARD As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319–20 (“CBE v. SCAQMD”) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–05).) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (PRC § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (“CBE v. CRA”).) The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (“Bakersfield Citizens”); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 3 of 13 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.) Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.) Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains: This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. (Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the CEQA, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal. CEB 2021).) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 4 of 13 resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).) CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA: …must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. (See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124–25.) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Id. at 121–23.) As discussed below, SAFER’s experts reported several issues related to the IS/MND and the Project’s potentially significant air quality, health risk, biological resources, and noise impacts requiring that the City prepare an EIR for the proposed Project. DISCUSSION I. There Is Still Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Air Quality and Health Risk Impacts Requiring an EIR. Environmental consulting firm SWAPE prepared expert comments on air quality and health risk impacts from the Project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE’s comments were attached as Exhibit A to SAFER’s July 11, 2022 comment letter, which are summarized in part below. On November 30, 2023, environmental consulting group Adkan Engineers prepared a brief response to SAFER’s July 11, 2022 comments, including SWAPE’s comments (“Second Adkan RTC”). A. There Is Substantial Evidence of Significant Health Risk Impacts from the Project’s Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions. SWAPE prepared a screening-level health risk assessment (“HRA”) to evaluate potential impacts from the Project’ construction and operation. (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, pp. 13-18.) Using the AERSCREEN model, SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 75 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. (Id.) SWAPE found that the excess cancer risk at a sensitive receptor located approximately 75 meters away over the course of Project construction Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 5 of 13 and operation is approximately 70.1 in one million for infants and 13.6 in one million for children. (Id. at 17.) Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of Project construction and operation of 30 years is approximately 91.1 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed Southern California Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) threshold of 10 in one million. SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. In contrast, the MND failed to adequately analyze the Project’s health risk impacts from DPM emissions. No quantified construction or operational HRA was prepared for the Project. Rather, the MND concluded that the Project’s construction-related health risks would be less than significant because of the Project’s limited heavy-duty construction equipment, distance to nearby sensitive receptors, short-term construction schedule, and adherence to State off-road equipment regulations would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant emissions. (MND, p. 41-42.) The MND also concluded that its operational health risks would be less than significant based on estimates that the Project would not exceed 100 truck deliveries per day or 40 trucks deliveries per day with transport refrigeration units, and would therefore not result in substantial DPM emissions. (MND, p. 42-43.) However, the MND fails to provide substantial evidence by not preparing a quantitative construction and operational HRAs to determine the Project’s health risk impacts from DPM emissions. B. The Project May Have a Disproportionate Health Risk Impact on Surrounding Communities by Failing to Adequately Assess Risks to Local Residents and Children from Project Emissions. SWAPE also determined that the Project would result in “disproportionate health risk impacts on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site.” (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, p. 6.) SCAQMD has found that “[t]hose living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.” (SCAQMD, “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board- adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9.) Expert reports from Metro Freight Center of Excellence and the University of Redlands have made similar findings, concluding that neighborhoods of color and which are lower-income are more likely to contain warehouse facilities. (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, p. 6.) San Bernardino County experienced “130 bad air days for ozone pollution in 2020 violating federal health standards on nearly every summer day.” (Los Angeles Times, “Southern California warehouse boon a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back.” May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-target- Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 6 of 13 warehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution.) This is due in large part to ground- level ozone, which is the main component of smog. The U.S. EPA states that smog can aggravate lung diseases and increase the frequency of asthma attacks, particularly in children. (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, p. 8.) CARB has found that children are at greater risk from inhaled pollutants due to a tendency to play on the ground with dirt containing toxicants, and their less-developed natural biological defenses, among other factors. (Id. at 9.) San Bernardino in particular has “long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden compared to the rest of California.” (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, p. 7.) SWAPE consulted the California EPA’s CalEnviroScreen screening tool, which ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability. (Id.) The Project site is in the 97th percentile of the most polluted census tracts in the State. (Id.) SWAPE also consulted SCAQMD’s Data Visualization Tool for Mates V and found that the City exhibits a heightened residential carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics. (Id. at 8.) SWAPE concluded that the Project’s development would “disproportionately contribute to and exacerbate the health conditions of residents in San Bernardino.”( Id.) For example, the MND states that the nearest single-family home is only 85 feet from the Project site. Multi-family residences are located as near as 115 feet to the north and 135 feet to the south of the site. (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, pp. 9-10; MND, p. 40.) The Monterey Elementary School is approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the site. (Id.; MND, p. 63.) SWAPE stated that this poses a significant threat due to children’s vulnerability to air pollution impacts. (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, p. 10.) Therefore, SWAPE concluded that “the Project would have detrimental short-term and long-term health impacts on local residents and children if approved.” (Id.) These findings represent substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project would have disproportionate and significant air quality and health risk impacts on local residents and children in the Project vicinity. These are cumulative impacts. The MND failed to adequately analyze these cumulative impact as part of its assessment of whether the Project would have significant air quality and human health impacts. (See CEQA Appendix G.) The Second RTC also failed to address the close proximity of single and mufti-family homes and a school near the Project site. SWAPE also stated that an HRA should be prepared to assess the cumulative air quality impacts from the “several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site.” (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, p. 10.) An EIR must be prepared in order to adequately assess and mitigate these impacts. II. There Is Still Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Biological Resources Impacts Requiring an EIR. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the IS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s biological impacts, in addition to conducting a site visit of the Project site. Dr. Smallwood prepared comments on the Project, which were attached as Exhibit C to SAFER’s April 28, 2022 comment letter submitted to the City. SAFER incorporates those comments herein by reference. Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 7 of 13 Dr. Smallwood’s original comments are still applicable to the Final MND. On November 30, 2023, environmental consulting group Adkan Engineers prepared a final response to SAFER’s April 28, 2022 comments, including Dr. Smallwood’s comments (“Adkan RTC”). Dr. Smallwood has reviewed those comments, and has provided a rebuttal, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Note that Dr. Smallwood also prepared responses to Adkan Engineers’ initial responses to Dr. Smallwood’s that were released on July 12, 2022, which were never submitted. This response is attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. Dr. Smallwood’s April 28, 2022 comments stated that the IS/MND failed to adequately characterize the environmental baseline, and failed to properly assess impacts to wildlife. In support of this, Dr. Smallwood pointed to the IS/MND’s inadequate biological survey and cursory review of literature and databases. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, pp. 8-21.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments are briefly summarized here. A. The IS/MND Is Inadequate in Its Characterization of the Existing Environmental Setting as it Relates to Wildlife. Dr. Smallwood’s analysis of the Project’s impacts is supported by a site visit that he conducted on April 25, 2022. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 1.) Dr. Smallwood reconnoitered the area for 1 hour and 50 minutes at 6:14 am, and for another hour starting at 10:18 am, both times with the use of binoculars. Id. During that visit, he observed the presence of 22 species of vertebrate wildlife at and near the Project site, two of which are special-status species. (Id.; see Attachment 1, Exhibit C, Table 1, p. 3.) Dr. Smallwood found that the site “composed an island of open space that would attract any wildlife in search of breeding opportunities, forage, or stop- over opportunities during long-distance travel.” (Id. at 2.) Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321.) Dr. Smallwood found that the IS/MND was incomplete and inaccurate in its characterization of environmental setting due to an inadequate biological survey and a review of literature and databases that was too cursory. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 8-21.) The biological survey for the IS/MND was prepared by Gonzales Environmental Consulting in June 2021 (GEC Report). The GEC Report only detected a fraction of the species identified by Dr. Smallwood, despite having surveyed the area for a longer period of time and having had direct access to the site. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 8.) Notably, Dr. Smallwood pointed out that the GEC Report did not record having seen signs of pocket gophers, which Dr. Smallwood observed were numerous, including ones that were spilling onto the sidewalk. (Id.; see also, Photo 11, p. 10.) Dr. Smallwood concluded that his findings demonstrate that there is a fair argument that an EIR should be prepared to accurately characterize the environmental baseline and properly assess impacts to wildlife. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 8.) Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 8 of 13 Dr. Smallwood also identified flaws in the IS/MND’s review of databases. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 15.) The GEC Report only reviewed the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) and inappropriately used it to screen out special-status species from further consideration. (Id. at 15-16.) Dr. Smallwood looked at additional databases that are useful to determine presence and likelihood of presence, such as eBird and iNaturalist. (Id.) Based on that review, he identified 99 special-status species that could potentially occur on-site, as compared to the GEC Report’s 41. (Id.; see also Table 2, p. 17-20.) Ultimately, Dr. Smallwood found that “[t]he site provides one of the few remaining opportunities in the region for wildlife to find breeding substrate and opportunities to forage and stop-over during travel.” (Id. at 21.) A skewed baseline such as the one used by the City here ultimately “mislead(s) the public” by engendering inaccurate analyses of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and cumulative impacts for biological resources. (See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners, 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711.) This inaccurate baseline and the species identified by Dr. Smallwood warrants discussion and analysis in an EIR to ensure species are accurately detected and that any impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. B. The Project May Have a Significant Impact on Lost Breeding Capacity. Dr. Smallwood found that the Project would contribute to a decline in birds in North America, a trend that has been happening over the last approximately 50 years largely due to habitat loss and fragmentation and would be further exacerbated by this project. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 21.) Based on studies on the subject, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the presence of the Project on the site could lead to as many as 66 bird nests lost annually. (Id.) He further found that the reproductive capacity of the site would be lost, as the Project would prevent 191 fledglings per year, which would in turn contribute to the lost capacity of 217 birds per year. (Id. at 22.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments are substantial evidence of a fair argument that habitat loss will impact species. The City must prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. C. The IS/MND Fails to Analyze the Project’s Impact to Wildlife Movement. Dr. Smallwood found that the IS/MND falsely claimed to have performed analyses to determine whether the Project would adversely impact wildlife movement. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 22.) Despite the MND’s claims, it “identifie[d] no seasonal foraging grounds, nor does it provide any foundation for analysis of genetic exchange among populations. And in fact, no level of demographic organization is characterized for any species of wildlife in the area, nor is there any description of how and to where wildlife move, disperse, or migrate in the area.” (Id.) Based on his assessment of the site, Dr. Smallwood determined that due to the multiple species of wildlife residing onsite, the majority of which are breeding, there would be offspring needing to disperse from the site, as well as other species which would need to come to the site Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 9 of 13 to breed and persist. (Id.) He concluded that “[a]s one of the last remaining patches of open space in the region, it is likely very important to wildlife movement,” and an EIR should be prepared to properly analyze this impact. (Id.) D. The Project May Have a Significant Impact on Special-Status Species from Additional Traffic Generated by the Project. According to the IS/MND, the Project will generate 913,213 annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 24.) Yet the IS/MND provides no analysis of the impacts on wildlife that will be caused by the traffic on the roadways servicing the Project. Vehicle collisions with special-status species is not a minor issue, but rather results in the death of millions of species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains: 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. The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 22, 24.) Using the IS/MND’s estimates of VMT as a basis, Dr. Smallwood was able to predict the impacts to wildlife that could be caused by the project. (Id. at 24.) Using the data from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, Dr. Smallwood calculates that operation of the Project over 50 years would cause an accumulated 10,000 wildlife fatalities. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood concludes “the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife” Including special-status species. (Id. at 25.) An EIR should be prepared which includes an analysis and mitigation of the result increased traffic from the Project will have on special-status species. E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Address the Cumulative Impacts of the Project on Wildlife. The GEC Report prepared for the MND provided a discussion of cumulative impacts which Dr. Smallwood determined was inapplicable to the Project. (Attachment 1, Exhibit C, p. 25.) Specifically, the GEC Report stated that some habitats would only be temporarily disturbed, and that some surviving species would return to the disturbed site following construction activity. (Id.) However, Dr. Smallwood states that “none of the soils and vegetation on the site would remain, because the site would be covered by impervious surfaces” and therefore “[w]ildlife would be unable to return to the site.” (Id.) The GEC Report also concludes that the Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 10 of 13 site features disturbed habitat, thereby limiting its value to native plant and animal species. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood notes that “[w]ildlife communities worldwide have been disturbed by human activities, so the mere fact that the site has been disturbed cannot preclude use of the site by wildlife.” (Id.) Further, Dr. Smallwood’s observations demonstrate that species do in fact use the site. (Id.) An EIR should be prepared to adequately analyze potential cumulative impacts to wildlife caused by the Project. As for the proposed mitigation measures, Dr. Smallwood states that while preconstruction surveys should be conducted for birds and burrowing owls, they represent only a “last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operation[] targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery.” (Id.) These surveys would therefore fail to detect most species. (Id. at 25-26.) As for the mitigation measures MM BIO-3 to BIO-5, Dr. Smallwood agrees that these are best practices, but that they would “do little to nothing to mitigate impacts to wildlife.” (Id. at 26.) Dr. Smallwood recommends several measures, including detection surveys and compensatory mitigation, which he states should be considered in an EIR for the Project. (Id. at 27.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments are substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant biological impacts that the MND has failed to adequately analyze and mitigate. The City should prepare an EIR to properly assess these impacts. III. There Is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project May Have a Significant Noise Impact Requiring an EIR. Deborah Jue, Principal of Acoustics, Noise, and Vibration consulting firm Wilson Ihrig, reviewed the MND for the Project and found that the MND relies on incorrect thresholds of significance to measure the Project’s potential noise impacts. Ms. Jue’s comments were attached as Exhibit B to SAFER’s July 11, 2022 comment letter submitted to the City. Ms. Jue’s original comments are still applicable to the Final MND. A. The MND’s Baseline Noise Environment Is Not Properly Established. Ms. Jue first found that the MND failed to provide information as to the existing noise environment of the Project site, therefore failing to provide an adequate baseline by which to measure the Project’s noise impacts. Specifically, she concluded that the MND fails to properly establish the baseline noise environment for the following reasons: Before analyzing a project’s impacts, an EIR must first identify and describe “the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” (14 CCR § 15125(a).) This information is critical to the EIR's impact analysis because it serves as the baseline against which a project’s predicted effects can be described and quantified. (14 CCR § 15125(a); Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 447 (Smart Rail).) A description of Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 11 of 13 important environmental resources that will be adversely affected by the project is critical to a legally adequate discussion of the environmental setting, and emphasis is to be placed on rare or unique environmental resources when describing the environmental setting. (14 CCR § 15125(c); San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722- 30 (San Joaquin Raptor) [description of the environmental setting deficient because it did not disclose the specific location and extent of riparian habitat adjacent to the property, inadequately investigated the possibility of wetlands on the site, understated the significance of the project's location adjacent to a river, and failed to discuss a nearby wildlife preserve].) Courts have repeatedly held that where an EIR contains an “inadequate description of the environmental setting for the project, a proper analysis of project impacts [i]s impossible.” (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1122 [invalidating EIR with only passing references to surrounding viticulture]; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 873-75.) Specifically, Ms. Jue concluded that the MND fails to properly establish the baseline noise environment for the following reasons, among others: • “The Noise Report provides data for short-term measurements conducted over 15 minutes in the middle of the day at two locations near the edge of the roadways (Waterman Avenue and Central Avenue) without any discussion of how the noise may vary. Since the Project operating hours are listed as 7 AM to 6 PM, these data represent only 3.6% of the noise environment during operating hours.” (Ex. B, p. 1.) • There is no evidence provided by the Noise Report or the MND to confirm how much quieter the noise could be during typical times of the day during construction and operational hours. (Id.) According to Ms. Jue, this is important because noise levels can fluctuate significantly at different times, and a comprehensive analysis should consider these variations. (Id.) • “The Noise Report provides no discussion of the dominant noise sources and how the noise levels at the residences would differ from the measurements.” (Id.) Ms. Jue explains that understanding the specific noise sources and their impact on residential areas is necessary to accurately assess the baseline noise environment. (Id.) The IS/MND must be revised to include sufficient information regarding the existing noise environment to measure the Project’s impacts against existing conditions, as required under CEQA. Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 12 of 13 B. The Project May Have Significant Noise Impacts. According to Ms. Jue, the MND and Noise Report’s impact analyses are considered incorrect for several reasons, summarized below. First, Ms. Jue points out that the Noise Report provides noise calculations for several construction phases, including Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction. (Ex. B, p. 3.) In each calculation the distance to the “center of the project site” was used. However, Ms. Jue explains that “[t]he analysis does meet the evidentiary standard to assess potentially significant effects, because there are no calculations to show the construction noise from activities conducted closer to the property lines and closest to the noise sensitive receptors.” (Id.) Using the widely-accepted FTA contruction noise method and considering that the standard for an IS and MND is to assess potentially significant noise impacts, Ms. Jue’s calculations at Table 2 provide results that are much higher than what was reported in the Noise Report. (Id.) Ms. Jue explains that “[t]hese results also that construction would cause a substantial and significant noise increase during most of the phases of construction.” (Id.) Second, regarding operational noise impacts, Ms. Jue found that: The details of the operational noise analysis are not provided for the reference noise measurements cited in Table D of the Noise Report: • No details are provided on the capacity, model, and manufacturer of the rooftop equipment • No details are provided on the size of the truck/semi-tractor trailer measured or speed or idling conditions. (Ex. B, p. 4.) By applying the appropriate guidance for HVAC design and warehouses and estimating noise from trucks on site based on current California Vehicle Code noise emission requirements for vehicles, Ms. Jue’s calculations found that homes to the east of the project site would experience a substantial operational noise increase and that this operational noise would be significant under CEQA. (Ex. B, pp. 4-5 & Table 3.) As a result of the Project’s significant construction and operational noise impacts, Ms. Jue concluded that the IS/MND “lacks the proper analyses needed to identify potentially significant effects and necessary mitigation.” (Id. at 6.) Because construction noise would generate significant impacts, Ms. Jue recommended several mitigation measures that should be implemented prior to project approval. (Id. at 5.) Ms. Jue also recommended several mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s operational noise given that the operational noise from the Project would generate significant impacts at homes to the east of the project. (Id. at 5-6.) This suitable mitigation should also be implemented prior to project approval. Comment on MND, Amazing 34 Distribution Center City Council Agenda Item 1 May 1, 2024 Page 13 of 13 Ms. Jue’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant noise impact. An EIR must be prepared to adequately assess these impacts. CONCLUSION In light of the above comments, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. , Sincerely, Victoria Yundt LOZEAU | DRURY LLP ATTACHMENT A 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Travis Martin, Associate Planner City of San Bernardino 201 North E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 1 May 2024 RE: Amazing 34 Distribution Center Dear Mr. Martin, I write to reply to responses to my 28 April 2022 comments on the IS/MND prepared for the proposed Amazing 34 Distribution Center. I first reply to responses circulated on 30 November 2028 by Adkan Engineers, referred to as Final Response to LD (April 28, 2022) Letter. Next, I reply to responses circulated on 12 July 2022 by Adkan Engineers, referred to as City Responses to Comments. My qualifications for preparing replies were summarized and more details attached to my expert comment letter of 28 April 2022. My replies follow responses in the order and numbering in which the responses appeared. I added sequential letters to separate my replies to responses directed to different issues. Final Response to LD (April 28, 2022) Letter I first comment on a second survey completed by ECORP (2023) “to check existing conditions against those reported in the 2021 Biological Report” or “to update the biological information for the Project.” My comments will also be informed by a second survey completed by Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University, Los Angeles, who on my behalf visited the site of the proposed project for one hour starting at 10:08 hours on 22 May 2023. Noriko applied the same methods and the same standards that I had applied during my second survey I completed on 25 April 2022. Response E.1a “The 2021 Biological Report stated that the survey results for sensitive species was good for one year. For this reason, in October 2023 an updated database search and field survey were completed by ECORP Consulting Inc. to update the biological information for the Project” Reply: ECORP (2023) explained that the second survey was needed because Gonzales Environmental Consulting (GEC 2021) reported “that the survey results for sensitive species was good for one year.” Unreported was the source of GEC’s one-year standard. I have not seen such a standard applied to a reconnaissance-level survey. The standard appears to have been GEC’s alone, as it does not derive from CEQA, from a resource agency, or from the scientific literature. ECORP (2023:8) assures that “no potential exists for sensitive plant or animal species to occur,” which is an assurance that suggests that by “valid,” both GEC and ECORP imply that their surveys qualified as protocol-level 2 detection surveys for sensitive species, and that their surveys provided “valid” evidence in support of absence determinations applied to sensitive species. This implication is misleading. Regardless of GEC’s one-year standard of survey validity, neither GEC (2021) nor ECORP (2023) completed a valid survey for sensitive species. Although sensitive species can be – and often are – detected during reconnaissance surveys, reconnaissance surveys do not provide the biologist(s) with anywhere close to the probabilities of detection of sensitive species as do the protocol-level detection surveys that have been formulated by experts on particular species. Reconnaissance surveys cannot provide the evidence of absence of special-status species that can be provided by detection surveys designed for this purpose. To be clear, neither GEC (2021) nor ECORP (2023) completed a survey for sensitive species; instead, they both completed what is known as a reconnaissance survey. ECORP (2023) conducted a reconnaissance survey for wildlife, but ECORP’s reporting of its survey methods was incomplete in one important respect. ECORP (2023) fails to report the time of day when its one-hour survey was conducted. The time of day when a survey is begun will have a large effect on the number of species detected (Figure 1). It is therefore imperative to report when the survey began so that the reader can appropriately interpret survey results. Figure 1. Effects of time of day when reconnaissance-level survey is begun. Data were from five 2-hour- long surveys at a project site in Vacaville and at another in Rancho Cordova in May and June 2022. (K. S. Smallwood, unpublished data) ECORP’s (2023) survey likely started late in the day, which resulted in many fewer species detected as compared to my findings or those of Noriko Smallwood’s (Table 1). Whereas GEC detected 4 species of vertebrate wildlife, and ECORP detected 6 species (2 Hour of day Greentree Kassis 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Species as proportion of max number counted 3 of the species were detected by both surveys), Noriko Smallwood and I detected 14 and 22 species, respectively, our results differing only because Noriko surveyed for less than half the time I did. Noriko and I detected 26 species of vertebrate wildlife, and combined with GEC’s and ECORP’s surveys, we detected 27 species. In other words, a little more survey effort, as well as Noriko and I probably having started our surveys earlier in the day than did ECORP, resulted in a wildlife species list nearly seven times longer than the species list achieved by GEC, and 4.5 times longer than the species list achieved by ECORP (Table 1). The species lists obtained by GEC and ECORP were unrealistically short for the purpose of characterizing the site’s wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. As I commented in my letter of 28 April 2022, due to the seasonality of movement patterns and habitat use by many species of wildlife, a realistic list of species that use the project site would not emerge until surveys are completed throughout a period of at least one year. GEC and ECORP reported mere snapshots of wildlife occurrence at the project site, and even these snapshots were of many fewer species at the site as compared to what Noriko and I found. Combining the 3.83 hours of survey completed by Noriko and I, and combining our survey results, I reapplied our findings to the analytical bridge to my larger research effort at another location in California (see pages 13-14 of my 28 April 2022 comment letter). Based on our survey effort and our findings, experience from my larger research effort would predict 100 species of vertebrate wildlife would be detected after many more surveys completed over the period of a year or longer. This prediction is only two fewer than my original prediction of 102 species in my 28 April 2022 comment letter. Assuming our ratio of special-status to non-special- status species was to hold through the detections of all 100 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 12 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife. Comparing the above-predictions to the findings of GEC and ECORP, GEC’s survey managed to detect only 4% of the species of wildlife that use the site, and ECORP managed to detect only 6% of the site’s wildlife community. These percentages are much too small to represent the wildlife community. Considering these small percentages and the short periods of time invested to obtaining them, it is of no surprise that GEC and ECORP failed to detect sensitive species. Indefensible, however, is ECORP’s (2023:8) assurance that “no potential exists for sensitive plant or animal species to occur.” GEC’s and ECORP’s minimal survey efforts cannot support this assurance. It is also readily refutable, as Noriko and I found three special-status species on the project site, including two protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, and one listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a Bird of Conservation Concern. My analytical bridge to a lot of data collected from one of my research sites, along with our survey findings at the project site, predicts 12 special-status species of wildlife. Twelve special-status species is significantly more than the zero assured by ECORP (2023). 4 Table 1. Species of wildlife observed by Gonzales Environmental Consulting, myself, Noriko Smallwood, and ECORP Consulting. Common name Scientific name Status1 Gonzales 6/26, 30/21 Shawn Smallwood 4/25/22 Noriko Smallwood 5/22/23 ECORP 10/7/23 2 hours 2.83 hours 1 hour 1 hour Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X X Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X White-throated swift Aeronautes saxatalis X Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna X Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax X Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP X American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans X X Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens X Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X Common raven Corvus corax X X X X American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X X X European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X X House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native X X X X Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X X Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus X X Bullock's oriole Icterus bulockii BCC X Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X X Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus X Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana X Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X House cat Felis catus Non-native X Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X X X 1 BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern; BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5). 5 Response E.1b “During the 2021 and 2023 field visits, a habitat-based analysis was performed to evaluate the potential for special-status species to occur at the Project site. Both the 2021 Biological Report and the 2023 update conclude that that no special status species have the potential to occur on site.” Reply: ECORP (2023) describes no method for how it assessed occurrence likelihoods of special-status species based on habitat on the project site. It is unclear what ECORP’s biologist was doing on the project site, other than searching for evidence of the presence of wildlife species. There is no evidence that ECORP performed habitat-based analysis during its site visit. GEC (2021) describes a method consisting only of rankings it applied to vegetation cover on site, including: not expected, low, medium, high, and expected. However, GEC (2021) fails to explain how these rankings were derived and what they actually meant in terms of probabilities of species’ occurrence. Did “not expected” mean 0% likelihood of occurrence? Did “low” represent a range of probabilities of occurrence likelihoods? If so, what was the range, and how was the range derived? Furthermore, these rankings express occurrence likelihoods, which are supposed to follow as outcomes of assessment of habitat associations, where habitat associations typically consist of documented or measured occurrences of a species with categories of environmental elements such as vegetation cover types or soil types (Smallwood 2002). Table 7.3 in GEC (2021) lists brief habitat associations for each special-status species that survived GEC’s inclusion filter of CNDDB records within 1 mile of the project site – a practice that was inappropriate (see my comments of 28 April 2022). However, the habitat associations that appear in GEC’s Table 7.3 pigeon-hole species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment that conveniently do not occur on the project site. For example, Cooper’s hawk reportedly requires “Woodland areas, especially dense stands of live oak and riparian vegetation. It typically nests in second growth conifers or in deciduous riparian stands.” Then, like it does for all of the other special-status species that survived its CNDDB query filter, GEC 2021: Table 7.3) reports, “There is no appropriate habitat on the project site. There is no potential for this species to occur on the project site.” Looking just a little further for habitat characterization, Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology’s All About Birds website (https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Coopers_Hawk/id) describes Cooper’s hawk habitat as “…forest and woodland …, but our leafy suburbs seem nearly as good. These lanky hawks are a regular sight in parks, quiet neighborhoods, over fields, at backyard feeders, and even along busy streets if there are trees around.” I do not know where GEC (2021) acquired its habitat description for Cooper’s hawk, but it does not comport with All About Birds nor with my own experience. I have found Cooper’s hawk at many sites in settings very similar to the Amazing 34 project site. GEC’s unrealistic habitat associations apply to all of the species in its Table 7.3. As another example, GEC characterizes Costa’s hummingbird as “Arid brushy foothills and chaparral habitats.” Based on this narrow habitat description, one might believe that Costa’s hummingbird could not possibly occur on the project site, but All About Birds 6 describes the species’ habitat much more broadly, and Noriko and I have found Costa’s hummingbirds in urban settings like that of the project site. Finally, Noriko and I detected three special-status species of wildlife on the project site, which is a finding that is inconsistent with the response’s conclusion that no special - status species have the potential to occur on the site. Response E.1c “Dr. Smallwood’s letter provides no facts to indicate that the baseline conditions analyzed in the MND were inadequate to serve as a baseline or that the Project would have greater impacts on wildlife than already discussed in the 2021 Biological Report and MND.” Reply: Noriko and I detected 26 species of wildlife on the project site, including 3 special-status species. This many species numbers 6.5 times the number detected by GEC (2021). My letter of 28 April 2022 includes photos of red-tailed hawk and Bullock’s oriole on the project site. It also includes a prediction from an empirical model that 100 or 102 species would be detected after more diurnal visual-scan surveys throughout the period of a year or longer, and the model provides the basis for predicting that 12 special-status species would be detected after sufficient surveys are completed. The evidence is overwhelming that the MND’s baseline is grossly inadequate for the purpose of predicting potential project impacts to the wildlife community. As I reported in my letter of 28 April 20232, GEC (2021) was unable to see the abundant evidence of pocket gopher burrows on site. This alone should serve as all the evidence needed to conclude that GEC’s survey effort was inadequate. ECORP (2023) notes the abundance of pocket gopher burrows. However, ECORP (2023) goes on to erroneously state that pocket gopher burrows are unsuitable to burrowing owls. Anyhow, a survey that fails to see the abundance of pocket gopher burrows, and one that sees only 10% of the birds I saw, is a survey that was grossly inadequate for the purpose of predicting potential project impacts to the wildlife community. Response E.1d “The 2023 update included a search of the California Natural Diversity Database, the California Native Plant Society’s online inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, USFWS database of Critical Habitat, eBird, iNaturalist, USFWS Information, Planning and Conservation System, and several other databases and other literature to compile a thorough analysis of the site.” Reply: The 2023 update fails to present the results of its search of occurrence likelihood data bases. The only evidence of such a search is ECORP’s reporting of potential errors in GEC’s (2021) search. However, the 2023 update also fails to appropriately use CNDDB, eBird and iNaturalist, all of which are positive sighting data bases that do not derive from scientific sampling or from any sort of weighting for negative survey findings. These types of data bases are useful for confirming species’ presence, but cannot be used in support of determinations of species’ absence. These types of data bases should not be used to screen out species that have not been reported to the data bases, and this is especially the case when the review queries are limited to a 7 one mile radius from the project site. The 2023 update fails to remedy the misuse of these data bases by GEC (2021). Response E.1e “Contrary to Dr. Smallwood’s assertion, the GEC report cites eBird as one of its sources of literature review.” Reply: I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I fail to see evidence of eBird’s use by GEC (2021). If GEC (2021) used eBird to select special-status species for inclusion in its habitat assessment if the species had records within one mile of the project site, as it did with CNDDB records, then it would have included white-tailed kite, northern harrier, merlin, peregrine falcon, vermilion flycatcher, horned lark, Bullock’s oriole, and others., eBird records of these species occur within one mile of the site, but GEC (2021) excluded these species from the occurrence likelihood analysis. Response E.1f “Both resources are considered citizen science and are general to a region or to specific “hot spots” rather than being site specific, and they are not the same as peer-reviewed research and studies made of a specific area by local biologists.” Reply: This response is misleading. The response implies that GEC (2021) represents peer-reviewed research, which it is not. A review by another consulting firm does not equate to scientific peer review. Scientific peer review is administered by a trusted third scientific body, and results in constructive comments to the authors who then revise the report in response to the comments. The administrator of the review then decides whether the revision sufficed and whether another round or reviews is warranted, and eventually whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. Nothing like this process has happened regarding GEC (2021). Regarding eBird and iNaturalist as products of citizen science, they are so. However, occurrence records in these data bases are not general to a region or to specific “hot spots.” Whereas uncertainty buffers can be added to iNaturalist records, almost all eBird records are specific to where the observations were made. I will also point out that thousands of scientific peer-reviewed papers have been founded on eBird data. Response E.1g “The inclusion or absence of these citizen science databases does not, in and of itself, render the analysis inadequate.” Reply: One of CEQA’s primary objectives is that the environmental review be informative of the current environmental setting and potential project impacts. Public participation with decision-making over proposed projects is another important CEQA objective, and one to which the public can contribute via their observations of special- status species on or near a project site. An ideal way to accomplish this is through the review of data bases founded on citizen science, whereby the public has already contributed their observations for just this type of need. With all of these citizen science data available, to not use them leaves the analysis inadequate. Response E.1h “Dr. Smallwood only provides a list of species he observed during a visit during the spring migration and lists some additional species, none of which are 8 unexpected to occur in the manner observed by Dr. Smallwood. … The black-crowned night-heron (Nyctocorax nycticorax) that he reports as flying over the site likely originated [at Seccomb Lake]. Night-herons are a species that favors aquatic environments for support and can be seen flying over many otherwise non-habitat areas on their way from one aquatic environment to another. Dr. Smallwood, however, uses the sighting to imply that the Project site has potential for supporting the species.” Reply: I did not “only provide a list of species” I observed during my survey of the site. I also provided notes of how many animals I saw and in some cases what they were doing. But of course I reported the list of species I observed at the project site, as that is the most fundamental reporting a biologist should complete. Whether the black-crowned night-heron was on its way to or from Seccomb Lake is unknown to me, and I do not understand how the responder can know this. I did note in my comment letter that this animal selected the project site as part if its travel route. This is important, because wildlife living within urbanizing environments often select travel routes over whatever open space remains to them. Volant wildlife need stopover opportunities and opportunities for finding refuge in a hurry. Volant wildlife that have to fly over warehouse rooftops are exposed to predators, and lack ready refuge. I will also note that black-crowned night-herons do not always roost at the bodies of water where they find forage. This species is well known for roosting in trees up to nearly a mile from foraging areas, e.g., the black-crowned night-herons roost in City of Oakland’s trees nearly a mile from Lake Merritt. Finally, the City’s response applies equally to the lists of species reported by GEC (2021) and ECORP (2023) as it does to the list I reported. The yellow-rumped warbler listed by ECORP does not live yearlong at the project site. The common raven that GEC and ECORP saw on the project site probably spends little time there, mostly just flying over it and occasionally foraging on it, similar to the black-crowned night-heron I reported. The only differences between our observed lists of species is that mine and Noriko’s were much longer than GEC’s and ECORP’s. Response E1.i “This is inaccurate [that black-crowned night-herons might use the project site as habitat] because the species clearly does not favor disturbed habitats such as are found on the Project site, based on its natural history (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2023; https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Black-rowned_Night_Heron/lifehistory).” Reply: It is entirely accurate that I observed a black-crowned nigh-heron use the airspace of the project site (Photo 1). Volant animals such as black-crowned night- herons must have open airspace in which to travel, and this open airspace is currently available at the project site. That black-crowned night-herons tolerate considerable levels of disturbance is obvious based on the species’ roosting behavior in Oakland, California, and based on the locations where Noriko and I have recorded them. And besides, Photo 1 depicts an actual black-crowned night-heron flying through the airspace of the project site. 9 Photo 1. Black- crowned night-heron flying over the project site, 25 April 2022. The City’s response is intended to cast doubt on the veracity of inclusion of special- status species listed in Table 2 of my 28 April 2022 comment letter. To be clear, I do not claim that all of the species in Table 2 of my letter should be considered as residents of the project site. What I intended with Table 2 in that letter is to propose a more defensible, thorough list of special-status species that should be analyzed for occurrence likelihood. Some of the species in my Table 2 likely do not occur on the project site, but their occurrence potential should be analyzed due to geographic range overlap and proximal occurrence records. In fact, the list of species analyzed for occurrence potential in the IS/MND includes some species that I chose not to include in Table 2 of my comment letter. Such species included arroyo chub, Santa Ana sucker, and steelhead, all of which are fish and could not possibly occur on the project site. Before the City criticizes my list of potentially occurring special-status species, it ought to examine its own list which includes fish species, along with other highly unlikely species such as northern goshawk, California condor, California red-legged frog, and south coast gartersnake. Response E.1j “Dr. Smallwood also claims there are numerous pocket gophers on or near the Project site. But the Botta’s pocket gopher is a common garden rodent that occurs within both urban and natural environments and is not considered a sensitive species under CEQA.” Reply: I did not claim there are numerous pocket gophers on the project site. I stated as fact that there are numerous pocket gophers. Of course I reported what I saw, just as did GEC (2021) and ECORP (2023). I never claimed that Botta’s pocket gopher is a special- status species, just as the consultants never claimed that any of the species of wildlife they observed were special-status species. The City’s response is misleading and irrelevant. 10 Response E.1k “The 2021 Biological Report further identifies burrowing owl mitigation, even though this species has a very limited chance to occur on the Project site.” Reply: As I commented in my letter of 28 April 2022, the proposed burrowing owl mitigation is inappropriate. It is inconsistent with the mitigation guidelines of CDFW (2012). A take-avoidance pre-construction survey cannot substitute for a detection survey, because the detection probabilities are nowhere close to those of detection surveys. A preconstruction survey is only intended as a follow-up survey to breeding- season detection surveys to ensure that no burrowing owls have repopulated the site since a negative finding from the detection survey or since the passive or active relocations of burrowing owls as a mitigation measure. Response 2a “Current trees on the project provide minimal nesting locations…” Reply: Define “minimal nesting locations.” The site has not been surveyed for nesting birds, so the City lacks any basis for insinuating that birds are unlikely to breed on the site. GEC (2021) surveyed during the breeding season, but GEC saw so few birds and so few species that it has nothing reliable to offer regarding whether and to what degrees birds breed on the project site. ECORP (2023) did not survey during the breeding season, so can provide no information regarding avian breeding. I saw ample evidence of breeding, which I included in my comment letter. Noriko also recorded breeding behaviors of birds she saw on site. Response 2b “Breeding capacity for nesting bird species throughout North America in the context the commenter has described is a highly speculative concept which has no current standards for analysis and is far too broadly based to be of use in the analysis of breeding capacity of a 3.8-acre Project site. Dr. Smallwood does not have evidence that 66 bird nests with the capacity of 217 birds per year occur on the Project site.” Reply: “A highly speculative concept” would not have passed peer-review in wildlife ecology’s leading journal, the Journal of Wildlife Management (Smallwood 2022). In fact, my comment letter stated my assumptions and detailed the model I used. The City has not challenged my assumptions nor any component of the model. Nor has the City analyzed the potential project impact of loss of productive capacity. Since my comments of 28 April 2022, I senior-authored a paper that reports on our measurement of the impacts of habitat loss caused by projects just like Amazing 34 (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). In fact, our surveys at the amazing 34 project site served as control replicate in our experiment of the effects of development on species richness and species abundance. Noriko Smallwood and I revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had 11 remained undeveloped. All of the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to 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%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all of the mitigation measures and existing policies and regulations. We also found that impacts to wildlife were most severe at infill project sites, where wildlife lacked habitat options on adjacent land areas. The Amazing 34 site can be characterized as an infill site. There is nothing speculative about our results. Response 2c “The analysis of breeding capacity is implied and inherent in the overall analysis of biological impacts related to the Project.” Reply: It is unclear to me what this response is supposed to mean. Response 2d “The nesting bird species expected on the Project site, and within the immediate vicinity, are birds adapted specifically to the urban environment and adapted specifically to disturbances such as noise, traffic and other human activity. Although development of the site reduces breeding bird capacity within the Project site, this is not a significant impact under CEQA due to the abundance of breeding habitat that will remain in the City and, specifically, surrounding the Project site. Further, many nesting birds adapted to urban environments are still expected to use the Project site’s landscaping after development.” Reply: The response is purely speculative, and none of this speculation is supported by evidence. It is preposterous to assert that birds are adapted specifically to disturbances such as noise, traffic and other human activity. Many birds are disappearing from our towns, cities and larger landscapes. In my town, burrowing owls have been extirpated since 2020, and the species is disappearing statewide, which is why a listing petition has been submitted to the California Fish and Game Commission (Miller 2024). Nationwide, nearly a third of the abundance of birds has disappeared over the last 50 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). An increasing number of species are being listed or added to lists of special-status species. The response refers to an abundance of breeding habitat remaining within the City, but neglects to specify where this abundance of breeding habitat can be found. The response claims that many nesting birds are expected to use the Project site’s landscaping after development. Please see Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) for a test of the veracity of this very assertion. It is false. 12 Response 3a “The biological studies for the Project were conducted in 2021 and 2023 and they considered and analyzed wildlife movement to the standards of CEQA.” Reply: The response fails to identify the standards of CEQA to which the IS/MND’s analysis of wildlife movement achieved. In fact, the only mention of observations intended to assess wildlife movement on the project site was GEC’s (2021) search for animal trails, bedding areas or burrows. GEC (2021) reports having not found trails, bedding areas, or burrows, but the credibility of this reporting was shattered by the fact that GEC failed to notice the many burrows that occur on the project site. There was no program of observation to characterize wildlife movement to and from the site or across the site. Bird flights were neither recorded nor quantified in any way by GEC or ECORP. Response 3b “According to the conclusions of both biological studies, the property has not been determined to be a part of a biological corridor or linkage area between large blocks of undeveloped areas, and therefore impacts to native species movement are considered less than significant.” Reply: Whether the project site includes or is within a wildlife movement corridor is not the only consideration when it comes to the standard CEQA Checklist question of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. In fact, a site such as the project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project, due to its elimination of at least 3.84 acres of open space, would cut wildlife off from one of the last remaining stopover and staging opportunities in the project area, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. This impact would be significant, and as the project is currently proposed, it would be unmitigated. Response 3c “Dr. Smallwood states that the Project site represents “one of the last remaining patches of open space in the region”; however, the surrounding parcels show similar amounts of open space and landscaped areas as the Project site. The Project area is urbanized and is expected to support primarily the wildlife species associated with urban and suburban environments. The diversity of wildlife is less within urban zone and is limited as far as species frequency due to the disturbances associated with developed areas. The type of species associated with urbanized areas within this part of the City of San Bernardino are expected to consist of largely non-sensitive wildlife species. Further, the current wildlife movement will continue even with the construction of the new warehouse building, just as it did with the previous existing warehouses.” Reply: The response is purely speculative, and none of this speculation is supported by evidence. The open spaces that remain east and south of the project site are already 13 occupied by wildlife. Contrary to the City’s speculation, wildlife abundance and wildlife movement is regulated by ecological capacities. If the City’s speculative argument is true, then wildlife species richness, wildlife abundance, and wildlife movement patterns would be unchanged from hundreds of years ago. This is of course not what has happened. The City is not seriously addressing my comments. Response 4a “The potential for vehicular impacts to wildlife are addressed in the context of wildlife corridors, which are adequately analyzed in the 2021 Biological Report. Wildlife corridors are linear features through which wildlife move from one block of open space to another. The Project site, which is surrounded by the urban environment, is not located within any open space areas and there are no wildlife corridors or linkages on or adjacent to the Project site.” Reply: For a more well-reasoned definition of wildlife corridor, see Smallwood (2015). Otherwise, my comments on the potential impacts of wildlife-vehicle collision mortality has nothing to do with wildlife corridors. As I commented in my letter of 28 April 2022 , the traffic generated by the project would not be contained to the project site, but would extend to many miles of roadway along which the generated traffic will travel. Response 4b “The traffic impact analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads concluded there would not be a significant increase in vehicle miles traveled from the Project. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to wildlife from the Project and no additional studies are required.” Reply: The significance determination of the traffic analysis applies to impacts to human traffic patterns, but not to wildlife collision mortality. The response is misleading. Response 4c “Any risk to wildlife from traffic collisions near the Project site would be primarily due to the busy, arterial road that exists just to the west of the Project site (Waterman Avenue). This risk is present with or without the Project as the busy arterial roads near the Project site are already subject to large traffic volumes. Based on field visits to the Project site, and observations of multiple urban environments and in fill parcels, traffic volumes result in avoidance of an area by most wildlife except for those that are adapted to crossing busy roads and living within an urban setting. Due to the aforementioned factors, any minimal increase in traffic resulting from the Project would not significantly add to the existing risk to wildlife and would not be a significant impact under CEQA.” Reply: The response is purely speculative, and none of this speculation is supported by evidence. Although anecdotal evidence is insinuated, none is actually presented in quantitative terms. Response 4d “Lastly, the Smallwood letter contains no evidence that the Project’s site conditions and traffic are comparable to Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, which runs 14 mostly through the undeveloped foothills of Livermore and is largely surrounded by wide expanses of grasslands and oak woodlands, with relatively little urban development or disturbed areas. The Smallwood letter does not support its arbitrary percentage for a reduction in deaths due to urbanization. The report’s “assumptions and simple calculations” are unfounded and speculative.” Reply: The response is misleading, because I did not claim that my predicted collision mortality is accurate. I presented my assumptions so that others can accept or reject them, or change them as evidence or experience supports. My exercise of prediction was only intended as an example of how the impacts of project-generated traffic can be predicted. The City’s response is to criticize my assumptions, which is fine, but it provides no analysis of its own. Response 5a “The Project site previously contained two warehouses and asphalt. The Project would only modify the existing condition with one warehouse rather than two, which would not significantly change the site conditions.” Reply: The existing setting applies to the setting at the time of the Notice of Preparation, not the two warehouses that previously occupied the project site. The existing setting is what Noriko and I surveyed. We did not see any warehouses on the site. Response 5b “Implementation of MM BIO-1 would protect any species of birds during construction if construction would occur during the MBTA nesting cycle.” Reply: There are two flaws with this response. First, a preconstruction survey would not find and salvage more than a small fraction of bird nests on the project site. It should be understood that preconstruction surveys, although warranted, actually achieve very little because most nesting birds are very difficult to locate. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season. The IS/MND includes no commitment to this level of survey effort. Second, any salvage of bird nests during the year of construction would salvage the nests of that year, but would fail to prevent the permanent loss of productive capacity from the sites of those nests subsequent to construction. An earlier response claimed that my prediction of lost productive capacity was speculative, but birds that once nested on the ground, within a shrub, or on a tree would no longer have these substrates available after the concrete slab of a large warehouse and the asphalt pad of the parking spaces replace them. There is nothing speculative about this. A preconstruction survey would not protect nesting birds. 15 Response 5c “Because the site is surrounded by a mixture of developed and disturbed habitats, the incremental impacts for the Project conversion from disturbed habitat to developed habitat is not expected to change the environment present within the immediate vicinity of the site. Cumulative impacts are therefore not considered to be significant. Reply: The opposite would be true. Surrounded by development, loss of one of the last patches of open space in the area would easily meet the definition of a project contribution to cumulative effects. With the project, the availability of open space and nest substrate would be diminished on a landscape where wildlife have few remaining opportunities to find forage, refuge, and breeding opportunities. Carrying capacities on what little open space remains would prevent animals displaced from the project from persisting on other patches of open space without loss to themselves or to the residents of those other patches of open space. The project would cause an overall decline in populations of each species at issue. Furthermore, the project-generated traffic would add to the traffic generated by other similar projects, and the cumulative increase in traffic would kill more wildlife. Response 5d The Smallwood letter suggests compensatory mitigation that is not required under CEQA as there would be no significant species impacts. The Detection Surveys are specified for “Special Status Species” and “Burrowing Owl”. Although 14 special status species (records from 1800’s to early 1900’s Rarefind 5 2021) have been documented within one mile of the proposed project site (Table 7.1 of Appendix F to the MND), no special status species were found at the site during field assessment. Special - status plant species documented within the San Bernardino South quadrangle and each species’ possibility of occurring at the project site are set forth in Table 7.2 of Appendix F to the MND. MM BIO-2 covers any Burrowing Owl activity/colonization on the project site. The project would not result in significant effects related to road mortality or habitat loss. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and compensatory mitigation is not required.” Reply: Just about everything said in this part of the response is inaccurate or flawed, but the larger problem with it is its misinterpretation of cumulative impacts. The response contrives the false standard that a given impact is cumulatively considerable only when it is a significant project-level direct impact that has not been fully mitigated, hence leaving a residual impact. The IS/MND implies that cumulative impacts are really residual impacts left over by inadequate mitigation of project impacts. This notion of residual impacts being the source of cumulative impacts is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of cumulative effects. Furthermore, if project mitigation achieved no significant cumulative impacts as implied by the response, then Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) would not have measured such large declin es in wildlife species richness and abundance at built projects. Individually mitigated projects do not negate the significance of cumulative impacts. If they did, then CEQA would not require a cumulative effects analysis. To summarize, the IS/MND presents no cumulative effects analysis as defined in two ways by CEQA. 16 City Responses to Comments, 12 July 2022 Response E.1 “The Habitat assessment was done in accordance with County of San Bernardino and CEQA requirements.” Reply: There are no CEQA requirements for habitat assessment per se, but there are CEQA objectives that habitat assessments should help to achieve. One of CEQA’s primary objectives is that the environmental review be informative of the current environmental setting and potential project impacts. At §15147, the CEQA Guidelines require “The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public.” A list of wildlife species detected at the site or likely to occur at the site is just the sort of information the CEQA review should include in support of a full assessment of potential project impacts to wildlife. This said, assuming presence of species is another way to approach the review in a scientifically defensible manner without having to complete more surveys. The IS/MND did not achieve the above-quoted CEQA objectives. The consulting biologist committed minimal time to the reconnaissance-level survey. As a result, his inventory of wildlife species totaled four. The consulting biologist saw four species at the same place where I saw 22 species in less than three hours of one day, and where Noriko Smallwood later added another 4 species in one hour of survey. The difference between what the consulting biologist and Noriko and I saw at the site cannot be explained away by a year’s time between our surveys, nor by speculation that I surveyed the wrong location (see below). The many soil mounds of pocket gophers on the project site, for example, were not located among the trees to the north, nor were they likely to have sprung anew during the year between our surveys. The reasonable explanation is that insufficient effort was devoted to the survey of biological resources in support of the IS/MND. Either this explanation or the consultant does not know what pocket gopher sign looks like. Response E.1 “...Dr. Smallwood may have done his survey North of the project where there is a dense population of trees, flora and fauna. This area is not being impacted by the project.” Reply: To be clear, the yellow-bounded polygon in Figure 1 delineates the boundary of my survey area. However, there is no denying that the trees to the north and the trees to the east influenced my survey outcome, just as they should have also influenced the survey outcome of the consulting biologist. Some of the birds I saw flew back and forth between the trees to the north and east and the open space of the project site (the buildings in the image in Figure 1 had been demolished before my survey). Thus, the response is inaccurate in its assertion that the wildlife using the trees to the north would not be impacted by the project; they most certainly would be. The grassland on the project site provides food resources for birds using the trees on and next to the project site. 17 Figure 1. Boundary (yellow line with red points at interstices) of the area I targeted for my visual-scan survey on 25 April 2022. I surveyed from the sidewalks along Waterman Ave and Central Ave. Birds perching in the trees to the north and east got my attention, but all of them made use of the area I targeted for survey. Image from Google Earth. Response E.1 “GEC used the California Natural Diversity Database and others not listed in the report to compile a thorough analysis of the site.” Reply: The analysis was not thorough. As I commented, the determinations of likelihood to occur were applied to only 41% of the species in Table 2 of my comment letter. (A revised Table 2 appears at the end of my replies because the original appeared to have been saved over by an earlier draft of my 28 April 2022 comment letter, in which inputs under database records were blank. Table 2 is now complete.) Of the 109 special-status species of wildlife that warrant an analysis of occurrence likelihood and which are listed in Table 2, 3 were observed on site, and 42 have been documented within 1.5 miles, 14 within 1.5 and 4 miles, and 41 between 4 and 30 miles from the project site. Of the 42 species in Table 2 that were analyzed for occurrence likelihood in the IS/MND, none were observed on site, and 15 have been documented within 1.5 miles, 9 between 1.5 and 4 miles, and 13 between 4 and 30 miles from the site. Nearly half of the species the IS/MND determines to have no potential to occur on the project site have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site. Too many special-status species that were not analyzed in the IS/MND have been documented at or near the project site, and too many of the special-status species that were analyzed in the IS/MND were determined to have no occurrence potential on the project site given the nearness of documented occurrences. 18 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status wildlife species at or near the proposed project site, according to the IS/MND, and 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 observed by Noriko or myself. Common name Species name Status IS/MND occurrence potential Database sightings Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low Nearby Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Nearby Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC None In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii SSC None In region Coastal whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris stejnegeri SSC None In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra TWL None Nearby Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region San Bernardino ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus modestus CNDDB None In regi0n California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC None In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus r. ruber SSC None Nearby Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC None Very close Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Very close Redhead Aythya americana SSC3 Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus TWL None Very close White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi TWL Very close Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkia BCC Very close American avocet2 Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, TWL In region 19 Common name Species name Status IS/MND occurrence potential Database sightings Whimbrel2 Numenius phaeopus BCC In region Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region Least bittern lxobrychus exilis SSC, BCC In region California gull Larus californicus TWL Very close Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region Caspian tern Hydropogne caspia WL In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, BOP Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP In region Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP None Nearby Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP None Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis TWL, BOP, Very close Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi BOP None Very close American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site Merlin Falco columbarius BOP None Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus TWL, BOP None Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP None Very close Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia BOP Very close 20 Common name Species name Status IS/MND occurrence potential Database sightings Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SSC3, BOP, BCC In region Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 None Very close Black swift Cypseloides niger BCC In region Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC None Very close Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia TWL Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC None Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE None Nearby Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 None Very close Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 None In region Bank swallow Riparia riparia BLM:S Very close Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 None Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE None Very close California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 None Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 None Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli TWL None Nearby Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region 21 Common name Species name Status IS/MND occurrence potential Database sightings Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, SSC None Nearby Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC Nearby Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor BCC, CT None Nearby Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 None Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC None Very close Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG H In region Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H None In region Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In range Long-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In range Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWG LM In region Pocketed free‐tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG M None In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG H None In range Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC None In range Dulzura pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus femoralis SSC In range Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus f. fallax SSC None In region Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC None In range Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC None In region San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus SSC None In region Stephens’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT None In region San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC None In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC None In region 22 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H). 2 Uncertain if BCC based on 2021 Bird of Conservation Concern list 23 the IS/MND is incomplete in its analysis of species occurrence likelihoods because it made inappropriate use of CNDDB by using the data base to screen out special-status species from the IS/MND’s analysis. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” The IS/MND misuses CNDDB, meaning that its analysis of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is incomplete. Response E.1 “The integrity of the biological activity will continue unimpeded by the proposed project and remain consistent with the existing site condition.” Reply: As I replied earlier, Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) refuted this notion. Over the last several years, Noriko and I have re-surveyed sites of proposed warehouses, some of which remain undeveloped and some of which have since been constructed. I surveyed each site using the same methods, including the same season of the year, the same start time, and the same survey duration. I assigned sites that remained undeveloped as experimental controls and sites that were since developed as experimental impact treatment, and I compared my survey outcomes in a before-after, control-impact experimental design. One survey outcome was total number of species seen during the survey, including species seen off the project site. A second survey outcome was total number of species seen only on the project site. A third survey outcome was total number of live animals counted during the survey. To remove any bias from variation in species richness among sites, I normalized each survey outcome metric to the count at each site in the before-construction phase. For each survey outcome metric, I quantified the expected outcome at impact sites (E[IA]) relative to the before-after change in outcomes at the control site, and the effect of the impact: 𝐸[𝐼𝐴]=(𝐶𝐴−𝐶𝐴)× 𝐼𝐴, 𝐼𝑀𝑃𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐶𝑇=(𝐸[𝐼𝐴]−𝐼𝐴) 𝐸[𝐼𝐴]× 100%. I used 2-factor analysis of variance with interest only in the significance of the interaction effect between before-after time period (BA) and control-impact treatment (CI) of each BACI experiment. The effect of newly constructed warehouses was a 59% decline in the number of wildlife species detected within an unconstrained survey viewshed (Figure 2), a 74% decline in the number of wildlife species detected only within the bounds of the project site (Figure 3), and a 93% decline in the number of live animals counted during the survey (Figure 4). The effects I found are highly significant and very substantial. These results contradict the IS/MND’s assertion that biological activity would continue as usual despite development of the project. 24 Figure 2. BACI test of the effect of warehouse construction on the counts of wildlife species detected from surveys at 28 project sites in California, showing an average 59% reduction in species counted as a result of warehouse construction. Figure 3. BACI test of the effect of warehouse construction on the counts of wildlife species detected from surveys at 24 project sites in California, showing an average 74% reduction in species counted strictly on the project sites as a result of warehouse construction. Before After Warehouse construction phase 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1 Meanspecies countedasproportionof before-phase count (95% CI)Expected -59% ANOVA F1,56 = 60.096, P = 0.000000 Before After 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1 Warehouse construction phaseMeanon-site species countedasproportionof before-phase count (95% CI)Expected -74% ANOVA F1,28 = 26.178, P = 0.00002 25 Figure 4. BACI test of the effect of warehouse construction on the counts of live animals detected from surveys at 12 project sites in California, showing an average 93% reduction in animals counted as a result of warehouse construction. Response E.1 “There were 2 warehouses previously, and the construction of a single new warehouse will have a minimal impact to the small bio-oasis to the North of the project.” Reply: I am unfamiliar with the term, bio-oasis, but it sounds interesting. If one occurs to the north, then the CEQA review should define it and disclose it. Response E.2 “The bulk of breeding capacity for nesting birds would be located on the undisturbed parcel to the North of the project. Current trees on the project provide minimal nesting locations and potential removal of these trees on-site would present a less than significant impact to wildlife.” Reply: It would help for the response to explain why the trees onsite provide less capacity for nesting by birds than the trees offsite. As for the birds nesting in trees offsite, nest attempts offsite are less likely to succeed without access to forage on the project site. Nest success depends not only on the availability of nest substrate, but also on the abilities of nesting birds to survive both the non-breeding seasons and the nesting seasons by finding sufficient forage and opportunities for finding refugia and stopover during migration and other long-distance movements. Response E.3 “The current wildlife movement will continue even with the construction of the new warehouse building, just as it did with the previous existing warehouses. There will still be potential for genetic exchange within the Northern area Before After -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.0 0 1 Warehouse construction phaseMean animals countedasproportionof before-phase count (95% CI)Expected -93% ANOVA F1,24 = 17.202, P = 0.00036 26 not impacted by the project. There are no barriers being constructed that would impede wildlife from utilization of the area.” Reply: See Photos 1 and 2 and 13 of my 28 April 2022 comment letter, which show birds flying through airspace that would be impossible to fly through once a warehouse is constructed on the project site. The same is true of the black-crowned night-heron seen flying through the project site’s airspace in Photo 1 herein. The birds in my Photos, 3, 4, 6 and 8 would lose the trees in which they were benefitting from cover, because those trees along the west side of the project would be removed. The birds in Photo 9 of my comment letter would also fail to find their movement destination once the project is built. Existing conditions include open space through which birds can fly, whereas the project would include a large building through which birds cannot fly. Response E.4 “The birds and wildlife using this area are not prone to leave their habitat North of the project and move into the paved areas.” Reply: The response is speculative and overly general, but easily testable (see Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). While Noriko and I surveyed the site for wildlife, not a single bird stayed put in a favorite tree, and all flew across portions of the project site, often from trees to ground whether paved or not. Response E.4 “The traffic impact analysis done by Urban Crossroads found in their VMT analysis that there would not be a significant increase in traffic created by the project. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to wildlife created by the proposed project.” Reply: The response inappropriately conflates the IS/MND’s significance determination to a type of impact to which the VMT analysis is not intended. The significance determination cited in the response applies to a VMT analysis, but not to an analysis of project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife. The IS/MND’s VMT analysis is relevant to traffic delays, not to wildlife likely to be killed at greater rates due to greater traffic volumes. Response E.5 “...the project does not disturb the area North which provides the prime wildlife and nesting opportunities adjacent to the project.” Reply: The response repeats the same unrealistic assertion as made in response E.1. Please see my reply to E.1. Wildlife, and most especially birds, are not static entities. Where birds nest is not the only place where they forage, and nor is where they roost or find cover. Birds that occur in the wooded area north of the project site also need the forage on the project site. I observed the fact that they do, as I saw Bullock’s orioles, Cassin’s kingbirds, western kingbirds, mourning doves, house finches, ash-throated flycatchers, black phoebes, bushtits, common ravens, American crows, northern mockingbirds, western tanagers, and a black-headed grosbeak fly from trees to ground or from trees to other onsite perches, and back again. None of the birds I saw during my survey were confined to one site or another, but depended on the mosaic of environments provided on and around the project site. This is how nature works. 27 Response: “Mitigation will be implemented per The migratory bird treaty act and survey will be conducted pre-construction to ensure less than significant impacts to wildlife.” Reply: The response is too vague. According to CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The mitigation that needs to be applied is that which meets CEQA’s objectives. My comments in my letter of 28 April 2022 provide recommendations to this end. Thank you for your consideration, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. LITERATURE CITED CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. ECORP. 2023. Biological Constraints and Response to Comment Letter - Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project in the City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California. Letter to Rudy Antebi, Orly Corp, Maison Division, New York, New York. GEC (Gonzales Environmental Consulting). 2021. General biological resource assessment and habitat assessment for APN 260-021- 34, 260-021-44 And 260- 021-47 (Amazing 34) Project. 358 Crystal Drive, San Jacinto, CA 92583 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. Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237. 28 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. 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. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037. Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054. Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626. 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Travis Martin, Associate Planner City of San Bernardino 201 North E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 8 September 2022 RE: Amazing 34 Distribution Center Dear Mr. Martin, I write to reply to responses to my 28 April 2022 comments on the IS/MND prepared for the proposed Amazing 34 Distribution Center. My qualifications for preparing replies were summarized and more details attached to my expert comment letter of 28 April 2022. My replies follow responses in the order and numbering in which the responses appeared. Response E.1 “The Habitat assessment was done in accordance with County of San Bernardino and CEQA requirements.” Reply: There are no CEQA requirements for habitat assessment per se, but there are CEQA objectives that habitat assessments should help to achieve. One of CEQA’s primary objectives is that the environmental review be informative of the current environmental setting and potential project impacts. At §15147, the CEQA Guidelines require “The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public.” A list of wildlife species detected at the site or likely to occur at the site is just the sort of information the CEQA review should include in support of a full assessment of potential project impacts to wildlife. This said, assuming presence of species is another way to approach the review in a scientifically defensible manner without having to complete more surveys. The IS/MND did not achieve the above-quoted CEQA objectives. The consulting biologist committed minimal time to the reconnaissance-level survey. As a result, his inventory of wildlife species totaled 3. The consulting biologist saw 3 species at the same place where I saw 22 species in less than three hours of one day. The difference between what the consulting biologist and I saw at the site cannot be explained away by a year’s time between our surveys, nor by speculation that I surveyed the wrong location. The many soil mounds of pocket gophers on the project site, for example, were not located among the trees to the north, nor were they likely to have sprung anew 2 during the year between our surveys. The reasonable explanation is that insufficient effort was devoted to the survey of biological resources in support of the IS/MND. Response E.1 “...Dr. Smallwood may have done his survey North of the project where there is a dense population of trees, flora and fauna. This area is not being impacted by the project.” Reply: To be clear, the yellow-bounded polygon in Figure 1 delineates the boundary of my survey area. However, there is no denying that the trees to the north and the trees to the east influenced my survey outcome, just as they should have also influenced the survey outcome of the consulting biologist. Some of the birds I saw flew back and forth between the trees to the north and east and the open space of the project site (the buildings in the image in Figure 1 had been demolished before my survey). Thus, the response is inaccurate in its assertion that the wildlife using the trees to the north would not be impacted by the project; they most certainly would be. The grassland on the project site provides food resources for birds using the trees on and next to the project site. Figure 1. Boundary (yellow line with red points at interstices) of the area I targeted for my visual-scan survey on 25 April 2022. I surveyed from the sidewalks along Waterman Ave and Central Ave. Birds perching in the trees to the north and east got my attention, but all of them made use of the area I targeted for survey. Image from Google Earth. Response E.1 “GEC used the California Natural Diversity Database and others not listed in the report to compile a thorough analysis of the site.” 3 Reply: The analysis was not thorough. As I commented, the determinations of likelihood to occur were applied to only 41% of the species in Table 2 of my comment letter. (A revised Table 2 appears at the end of my replies because the original appeared to have been saved over by an earlier draft of my 28 April 2022 comment letter, in which inputs under database records were blank. Table 2 is now complete.) Nearly half of the species the IS/MND determines to have no potential to occur on the project site have been documented within 1.5 miles of the project site. Furthermore, the IS/MND made inappropriate use of CNDDB by using the data base to screen out special-status species from the IS/MND’s assessment of occurrence likelihoods. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” The IS/MND misuses CNDDB, meaning that its analysis of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is incomplete. Response E.1 “The integrity of the biological activity will continue unimpeded by the proposed project and remain consistent with the existing site condition.” Reply: I do not know what the above-quoted statement means. Is it trying to say that the construction of a warehouse would have not impact on the wildlife that currently use the site? If so, then supporting evidence is warranted. The burden of proof is on the project applicant and the City of San Bernardino, but assuming none can be brought to bear, I have evidence to the contrary. Over the last several years, I have re-surveyed sites of proposed warehouses, some of which remain undeveloped and some of which have since been constructed. I surveyed each site using the same methods, including the same season of the year, the same start time, and the same survey duration. I assigned sites that remained undeveloped as experimental controls and sites that were since developed as experimental impact treatment, and I compared my survey outcomes in a before-after, control-impact experimental design. One survey outcome was total number of species seen during the survey, including species seen off the project site. A second survey outcome was total number of species seen only on the project site. A third survey outcome was total number of live animals counted during the survey. To remove any bias from variation in species richness among sites, I normalized each survey outcome metric to the count at each site in the before-construction phase. For each survey outcome metric, I quantified the expected outcome at impact sites (E[IA]) relative to the before-after change in outcomes at the control site, and the effect of the impact: 𝐸[𝐼𝐴]=(𝐶𝐴−𝐶𝐴)× 𝐼𝐴, 𝐼𝑀𝑃𝐴𝐶𝑇 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐶𝑇=(𝐸[𝐼𝐴]−𝐼𝐴) 𝐸[𝐼𝐴]× 100%. 4 I used 2-factor analysis of variance with interest only in the significance of the interaction effect between before-after time period (BA) and control-impact treatment (CI) of each BACI experiment. The effect of newly constructed warehouses was a 59% decline in the number of wildlife species detected within an unconstrained survey viewshed (Figure 2), a 74% decline in the number of wildlife species detected only within the bounds of the project site (Figure 3), and a 93% decline in the number of live animals counted during the survey (Figure 4). The effects I found are highly significant and very substantia. These results contradict the IS/MND’s assertion that biological activity would continue as usual despite development of the project. Figure 2. BACI test of the effect of warehouse construction on the counts of wildlife species detected from surveys at 28 project sites in California, showing an average 59% reduction in species counted as a result of warehouse construction. Before After Warehouse construction phase 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1 Meanspecies countedasproportionof before-phase count (95% CI)Expected -59% ANOVA F1,56 = 60.096, P = 0.000000 5 Figure 3. BACI test of the effect of warehouse construction on the counts of wildlife species detected from surveys at 24 project sites in California, showing an average 74% reduction in species counted strictly on the project sites as a result of warehouse construction. Figure 4. BACI test of the effect of warehouse construction on the counts of live animals detected from surveys at 12 project sites in California, showing an average 93% reduction in animals counted as a result of warehouse construction. Response E.1 “There were 2 warehouses previously, and the construction of a single new warehouse will have a minimal impact to the small bio-oasis to the North of Before After 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 1 Warehouse construction phaseMeanon-site species countedasproportionof before-phase count (95% CI)Expected -74% ANOVA F1,28 = 26.178, P = 0.00002 Before After -0.5 0.5 1.5 2.0 0 1 Warehouse construction phaseMean animals countedasproportionof before-phase count (95% CI)Expected -93% ANOVA F1,24 = 17.202, P = 0.00036 6 the project.” Reply: I am unfamiliar with the term, bio-oasis. If one occurs to the north, the CEQA review should define it and disclose it. Response E.2 “The bulk of breeding capacity for nesting birds would be located on the undisturbed parcel to the North of the project. Current trees on the project provide minimal nesting locations and potential removal of these trees on-site would present a less than significant impact to wildlife.” Reply: It would help for the response to explain why the trees onsite provide less capacity for nesting by birds than the trees offsite. As for the birds nesting in trees offsite, nest attempts offsite are less likely to succeed without access to forage on the project site. Nest success depends not only on the availability of nest substrate, but also on the abilities of nesting birds to survive both the non-breeding seasons and the nesting seasons by finding sufficient forage and opportunities for finding refugia and stopover during migration and other long-distance movements. Response E.3 “The current wildlife movement will continue even with the construction of the new warehouse building, just as it did with the previous existing warehouses. There will still be potential for genetic exchange within the Northern area not impacted by the project. There are no barriers being constructed that would impede wildlife from utilization of the area.” Reply: See Photos 1 and 2 and 13 of my 28 April 2022 comment letter, which show birds flying through airspace that would be impossible to fly through once a warehouse is constructed on the project site. The birds in my Photos, 3, 4, 6 and 8 would lose the trees in which they were benefitting from cover, because those trees along the west side of the project would be removed. The birds in Photo 9 of my comment letter would also fail to find their movement destination once the project is built. Existing conditions include open space through which birds can fly, whereas the project would include a large building through which birds cannot fly. Response E.4 “The birds and wildlife using this area are not prone to leave their habitat North of the project and move into the paved areas.” Reply: The response is unrealistic, and easily testable. Birds have wings, which they use to fly to and from substrate where they perch and open space where they forage and socialize. During my survey at the site, there was not a bird that stayed put in the manner characterized in the response. Response E.4 “The traffic impact analysis done by Urban Crossroads found in their VMT analysis that there would not be a significant increase in traffic created by the project. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to wildlife created by the proposed project.” 7 Reply: The response inappropriately conflates the IS/MND’s significance determination to a type of impact to which the VMT analysis is not intended. The significance determination cited in the response applies to a VMT analysis, but not to an analysis of project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife. The VMT analysis is relevant to traffic delays, not to wildlife likely to be killed at greater rates due to greater traffic volumes. Response E.5 “...the project does not disturb the area North which provides the prime wildlife and nesting opportunities adjacent to the project.” Reply: The response repeats the same unrealistic assertion as made in response E.1. Please see my reply to E.1. Wildlife, and most especially birds, are not static entities. Where birds nest is not the only place where they forage, and nor is where they roost or find cover. Birds that occur in the wooded area north of the project site also need the forage on the project site. I observed the fact that they do, as I saw Bullock’s orioles, Cassin’s kingbirds, western kingbirds, mourning doves, house finches, ash-throated flycatchers, black phoebes, bushtits, common ravens, American crows, northern mockingbirds, western tanagers, and a black-headed grosbeak fly from trees to ground or from trees to other onsite perches, and back again. None of the birds I saw during my survey were confined to one site or another, but depended on the mosaic of environments provided on and around the project site. This is how nature works. Response: “Mitigation will be implemented per The migratory bird treaty act and survey will be conducted pre-construction to ensure less than significant impacts to wildlife.” Reply: The MBTA itself does not provide guidance on mitigation, so the response is vague. The mitigation that needs to be applied is that which meets CEQA’s objectives. My comments provides recommendations to this end. Thank you for your attention, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. 8 Table 2. Reports of special-status bird species occurrences near the proposed project site, according to Gonzales Environmental Consulting (GEC) and eBird (https://eBird.org). Common name Species name Status Database records, site visits Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC Nearby Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii SSC Very close Coastal western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris stejnegeri SSC In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra TWL Nearby Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Very close San Bernardino ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus modestus CNDDB In region California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Northern red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus r. ruber SSC Nearby Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Very close Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Very close Redhead Aythya americana SSC3 Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus TWL Very close White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi TWL Very close Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkia BCC Very close Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, TWL In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC In region Least bittern lxobrychus exilis SSC, BCC In region California gull Larus californicus TBCC, WL Very close Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region Caspian tern Hydropogne caspia WL In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, BOP Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP In region Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP Nearby Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis TWL, BOP, Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close 9 Common name Species name Status Database records, site visits White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi BOP Very close American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius BOP Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus TWL, BOP Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BOP Nearby Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP Very close Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia BOP Very close Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SSC3, BOP In region Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close Black swift Cypseloides niger BCC In region Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCC In region Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia TWL Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 Very close Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby Bank swallow Riparia riparia BLM:S Very close Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE Very close California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli TWL Nearby Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, SSC Nearby 10 Common name Species name Status Database records, site visits Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor BCC, CT Very close Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC On site Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG H In region Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H In region Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In region Long-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In region Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWG LM In region Pocketed free‐tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG M In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG H In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range Dulzura pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus femoralis SSC In range Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus f. fallax SSC In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC In region San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus SSC In region Stephens’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT in region San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region 1 Listed as FT and FE = federal threatened and endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT and CE = California threatened and endangered, CCE – Candidate California endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CFG Code 3511), BOP = Birds of Prey (California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and TWL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as low, moderate or high priority. ATTACHMENT B WI #22-004.11 May 1, 2024 Ms. Victoria Yundt Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 SUBJECT: Amazing 34 Distribution Center, Comments on the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Yundt, Per your request, we have reviewed the Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (Final ISMND) for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center (Project), specifically the Noise section of the CEQA checklist (page 69 of 113) and Appendix F, Noise Technical Memorandum (Noise Report) prepared October 6, 2023 (page 573 of the PDF and following). We previously provided comments on the project in July 2022, and these comments on the Final ISMND focus on the remaining issues. The proposed Project in San Bernardino would demolish an existing warehouse building and construct a new distribution warehouse that will include storage (~77,560 sq. ft.), warehouse mezzanine (~7,350 sq. ft.), wholesale (2,280 sq. ft. 1st floor) and office (2,280 sq. ft. 2nd floor). Baseline Noise Environment is Not Properly Established for Residences The Noise Report provides data for short-term measurements conducted over 15 minutes in the middle of the day at two locations near the edge of the roadways (Waterman Avenue and Central Avenue)without any discussion of how the noise may vary. Since the Project operating hours are listed as 7 AM to 6 PM, these data represent only 3.6% of the noise environment during operating hours. There is no evidence provided to confirm how much quieter the noise could be during typical times of the day during construction and operational hours. Furthermore, since these data were collected near the roadways, and the residential receptors are located even further away from the roadways, the actual ambient noise at the nearest homes must be less than the data reported by virtue of the physical laws of acoustics. The Noise Report provides no discussion of the dominant noise sources and how the noise levels at the residences would differ from the measurements . Assuming that the traffic on Waterman and Central Avenues is intermittent, the noise would generally attenuate with distance as a moving point source or 15*log(ratio of distances). Table 1 shows the ambient noise levels at the north and east residences adjusted from the noise measurement data shown in Table A of the Noise Report. With proper adjustment for distance, the ambient is almost 14 dBA less than reported in the Final ISMND. WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse Final ISMND Page 2 Table 1 Existing (Ambient) Noise Adjusted from Measurements Residential Receptor Distance from Centerline Near Road (ft) Reference Measurement from Final ISMND Calculated Ambient (dBA) Distance (ft) Sound Level (dBA) MFR North Cluster 265 to 455 55 (Waterman) 69 (or 68.9) 55 to 58 SFR East Cluster 116 to 390 50 (Central) 62 (or 61.8) 48 to 56 Thresholds of Significance are Not Properly Developed The construction noise threshold proposed in the Noise Report does not address whether the project would generate a substantial or temporary increase. The Noise Report draws upon OSHA hearing loss standards of 85 dBA. Hearing loss is important to consider, but it is not the only effect. It is widely understood that a noise increase of 10 dBA is perceived to be a doubling of sound. Relying solely on the OSHA limit would more than quadruple (20 dBA increase) the perceived noise environment over the noise levels as measured near the roadway; when compared to the calculated ambient at the residences, the OSHA limit proposed by the Noise Report would increase the noise by more than 30 dBA. Clearly, a lower threshold is necessary to assess other significant effects. Other adverse effects1 of noise include: Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. Typical outdoor speech levels are about 65 dBA, so any noise above 50 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result. Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance. Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease. Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes), and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments. 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf) WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse Final ISMND Page 3 With daytime-only operations sleep disturbance would only apply to people who sleep during daytime hours such as shift workers, children, etc. Speech interference for residents in their outdoor areas and in their homes would be an effect to assess. For new construction with sound insulating windows, the indoor level caused by exterior sound sources is 25 dBA less than the exterior sound. For older homes, the indoor level is 20 dBA less, and with open windows the walls only reduce the exterior sound by 15 dBA. Based on the data in Table 1, construction noise that is 15 dBA higher than the ambient at the residences would be 70 dBA (exterior) and 55 dBA (interior with open windows) or more at the residences to the north and 63 dBA (exterior) and 48 dBA (interior with open windows). At these levels, the construction noise would cause substantial speech interference with the neighbors. This effect must be considered significant. Operational noise that exceeds the existing ambient by 10 dBA would be substantial and potentially significant. Impact Analyses are Incorrect The Noise Report provides noise calculations for several construction phases, including Demolition, Site Preparation, Grading, and Building Construction. In each calculation the distance to the “center of the project site” was used. The analysis does meet the evidentiary standard to assess potentially significant effects, because there are no calculations to show the construction noise from activities conducted closer to the property lines and closest to the noise sensitive receptors. The FHWA does not provide specific guidance on the use of the “center” distance, but the FTA construction noise method is widely used which indicates that where acoustical usage factors are used (Detailed Assessment), the distance from each piece of equipment is used in the calculation2. Since the standard for an IS and MND is to assess potentially significant noise impacts , the worst case assessment is necessary, and Table 2 summarizes the resulting calculations with the more conservative distances. The results are much higher than what was reported in the Noise Report. These results also show that construction would cause a substantial and significant noise increase during most of the phases of construction. Table 2 Compare Construction Noise Analyses (North and East) Residential Receptor Construction Phase Calculated Ambient (dBA) Substantial Increase Threshold Construction Noise Calculations – FTA Detailed Assessment Construction Noise Calculations from Final ISMND Distance to Nearest Project Work Area (ft) Sound Level Distance from Center of Project (ft) Sound Level (dBA) MFR North Cluster Demolition 55 - 58 70 120 79 320 70 Site Preparation 120 79 70 Grading 120 79 70 Building Construction 265 73 71 Paving 120 77 68 SFR East Cluster Demolition 48 - 56 63 150 77 300 71 Site Preparation 125 79 71 Grading 125 79 70 Building Construction 145 78 72 Paving 125 77 69 2 FTA “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,” Section 7.1, pp.177 -178. WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse Final ISMND Page 4 The details of the operational noise analysis are not provided for the reference noise measurements cited in Table D of the Noise Report: • No details are provided on the capacity, model, and manufacturer of the rooftop equipment • No details are provided on the size of the truck/semi-tractor trailer measured or speed or idling conditions Guidance for HVAC design and warehouses indicates that the air exchange rate is typically on the order of 6 to 30 changes per hour based on a number of factors defined by ANSI/ASHRAE3. The cubic volume of the Project building is on the order of 4.1million cubic feet. Based on 6 air changes per hour, the HVAC needs move air at a rate of about 410,000 cubic foot per minute (CFM) per warehouse design standards. An HVAC unit provides 1 ton of cooling per 350 to 400 CFM, and about 1,025 tons would be required. The most common large unit size is 25 tons. Units over 25 tons are often considered custom units and are not as readily available, therefore, this assessment focuses on readily available unit sizes. Assuming 25-ton units, 37 units would be required to cool the warehouse assuming no refrigeration. The cooling units would typically be distributed throughout the rooftop and while the noise from many would be substantially shielded by the edge of the roof, it is reasonable to expect that some units would be placed near the edge of the roof, cumulatively generating a substantial amount of noise. These calculations assume that 4 of the units (10%) would be placed near the north edge of the roof, and another 4 near the east edge of the roof. Based on available online published manufacturer sound data, the typical sound power level from a 25-ton packaged rooftop HVAC unit is 95 dBA.4 Noise from trucks on-site was estimated using an Lmax reference level of 88 dBA at 50 ft and 50 mph for heavy trucks based on current California Vehicle Code5 noise emission requirements for vehicles. Adjusting for 5 mph the reference level is 68 dBA at 50 ft for a single truck. With these two adjustments, the modified operational noise analysis is shown Table 3, based on the Table D from the Noise Report. 3 https://www.sdcexec.com/warehousing/design-build/article/22043713/robovent-8-considerations-in- warehouse-ventilation-design 4 Trane Product Catalog for Packaged Rooftop Air Conditioners Voyager™, page 22. https://www.trane.com/content/dam/Trane/Commercial/lar/Peru/Manuales/Voyager-II/RT-PRC028Y- EN_Catalog.pdf 5 VEH division 12 chapter 5, Article 2.5; 27204 or medium trucks; 27207 for heavy trucks (with a governor/engine brake) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=12.&chapter=5.&lawCode=VEH&article= 2.5 WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse Final ISMND Page 5 Table 3 Operational Noise Levels at the Nearby Homes – Adapted from Noise Report Table D Home to East Homes to North Home to Southeast Noise Source Source to Home (feet) Noise Level (dBA Leq) Source to Home (feet) Noise Level (dBA Leq) Source to Home (feet) Noise Level (dBA Leq) Rooftop Equipment1 140 58.1 275 52.2 170 56.4 Auto Parking Lot 80 39.0 115 35.9 265 28.6 Onsite Truck Operations2 100 57.5 135 55.5 135 55.5 Forklift 250 46.4 135 51.8 450 41.3 Combined Noise Level 61.0 58.3 59.1 City Residential Standard 65 65 65 Exceed City Noise Standard? No No No Existing Ambient 48 55 Unknown Noise Increase 13 3 Unknown Substantial Noise Increase? Yes No Unknown Significant? Yes No Unknown Notes: 1 Sound power level 95 dBA per Trane catalog for 25 ton unit. 2 Adjusted from CVC truck noise limits, 68 dBA at 5 mph, 50 ft, cumulatively occurring for 15 minutes in any hour. Noise Mitigations are Lacking Construction noise would generate significant impacts, and suitable mitigation could include: • Temporary sound walls or sound blanket barriers along the north and east Project perimeter o Block line of sight and provide sufficient reduction to eliminate the noise impact (9 dBA to the north and 13 dBA to the east). o These barriers would need to be about 15 to 25 ft high to provide substantial shielding for all noisy activities. o Barrier materials a construction must provide minimum STC 25 rating, which could include ¾” plywood barrier or sound blanket o No gaps allowed in the barrier; drainage and access doors must be designed to avoid all gaps. • Time limits on construction activities at the north and east property lines to reduce the duration of the effects Operational noise would generate significant impacts at homes to the east of the project, and suitable mitigation could include: • Roof parapet walls and noise screening walls to reduce noise from rooftop equipment • Permanent noise wall along the east property line to shield truck and loading dock activities. WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse Final ISMND Page 6 o Minimum 8 ft high to block line of sight to residences to the east o Constructed of wood or CMU o Barrier materials and construction must provide minimum STC 25 rating, which could include ¾” tongue-and-groove wood fence o No gaps allowed in the barrier; drainage and access doors must be designed to avoid all gaps. Conclusions The Final ISMND addresses many of our prior comments, but lacks the proper analyses needed to identify potentially significant effects and necessary mitigation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information. Very truly yours, WILSON IHRIG Deborah A. Jue, INCE-USA Principal amazing 24 final ismnd _noise review_wilson ihrig_ 05012024.docx WI #22-004.11 September 20, 2022 Ms. Amalia Bowley Fuentes Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 SUBJECT: Amazing 34 Distribution Center Response to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Additional Comments Dear Ms. Bowley Fuentes Per your request, I have reviewed the Responses provided by Adkan Engineers to our prior comments on the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND). The proposed Project in San Bernardino would demolish an existing warehouse building and construct a new distribution warehouse that will include storage (~77,560 sq. ft.), warehouse mezzanine (~7,350 sq. ft.), wholesale (2,280 sq. ft. 1st floor) and office (2,280 sq. ft. 2nd floor). The following are the responses provided (bold), in context with the original comments (inset, italic), and our follow-up comments following in plain text (blue). Baseline Noise Environment is Not Properly Established The ISMND provides no evidence upon which to base its determination of the Project’s increase in noise levels (Criterion 13 a and 13 c) as the ISMND lacks any discussion of existing noise levels. The single paragraph on the noise environment (p. 73 of 108) provides no site-specific data to establish the noise impact assessment, and no discussion is provided to set the context for whether the existing noise environment is compatible with the existing land use. Unfortunately, the City’s Noise Element also lacks any data that documents the noise environment at the time the General Plan1 was approved in 2005. However, it does include future noise contours along the major roadways (Figure N-2, page 14-17) for some unstated target year. This figure appears to show that land use at about 95 ft from the center of Waterman Avenue are exposed to CNEL levels of 70 CNEL, but land use along Central Avenue, where no noise contours are shown, are presumed to be less than CNEL 60 from roadway and railroad noise. 1 https://cdn5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_17442462/File/Government/Department/Community%20&%20Eco nomic%20Development/Planning/Complete%20General%20Plan%20Compressed.pdf WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 2 The Noise Element (page 14-13) mentions the lack of noise data from the nearby San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA)2, where noise contours were to be incorporated from the airport’s master plan into the Noise Element’s Figure N-2 and the Land Use Figure LU-4. It is not apparent whether that has been done. Given the proximity of the project 1.3 miles west of the end of the SBIA runways, it is likely that the noise from SBIA influences the noise environment at the project site, and data regarding the existing noise environment is essential to consider whether noise increases would be significant. Figure LU-4 of the General Plan shows that the project falls within the Airport Influence Area. Response B.1: Previously the project consisted of two existing Industrial buildings. The buildings have since been removed in preparation for this project after there was severe damage from a vagrant caused structure fire. The site is surrounded by industrial, commercial and some residential uses. The project does not anticipate to generate any additional noise impacts than the previously allowed operations had the existing buildings not caught fire and been demolished. Follow-up comment: The main underpinning of a CEQA analysis is reliable and accurate information about the current state of the environment. It is impossible to say how a project would alter the environment without this baseline information, which is why it is required by CEQA. In this case, the IS/MND fails to ascertain the existing baseline in any manner or acknowledge how the present day noise may differ from that environment prior to the fire; the RTC disavows the need to do so. This is counter to both the spirit and letter of CEQA. Furthermore, without any data that characterizes the existing environment, or prior environment, there is no foundation to establish whether the existing or prior environment is, or was, compatible with the City’s land use compatibility guidance. Thresholds of Significance are Not Properly Developed The ISMND does not reference the City’s Noise Element, Chapter 14 of General Plan, which cites many policies that are applicable to this project, including the following: 14.1.2 Require that automobile and truck access to commercial properties abutting residential parcels be located at the maximum practical distance from the residential parcel. (LU-1) 14.1.3 Require that all parking for commercial uses abutting residential areas be enclosed within a structure, buffered by walls, and/or limited hours of operation. (LU-1) 14.1.4 Prohibit the development of new or expansion of existing industrial, commercial, or other uses that generate noise impacts on housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above a Ldn of 65 dB(A). (LU-1) 14.2.2 Employ noise mitigation practices when designing future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise- sensitive areas. (N-1) 2 No noise contours appear to be available. https://www.sbdgoodneighbor.com/ WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 3 14.2.3 Require that development that increases the ambient noise level adjacent to noise- sensitive land uses provide appropriate mitigation measures. (LU-1) 14.2.4 Maintain roadways so that the paving is in good condition and free of cracks, bumps, and potholes. (A-2) 14.2.5 Require sound walls, berms, and landscaping along existing and future highways and railroad right-of-ways to beautify the landscape and reduce noise. (N-1) 14.2.6 Buffer residential neighborhoods from noise caused by train operations and increasing high traffic volumes along major arterials and freeways. (N-1) 14.2.8 Minimize noise attributable to vehicular travel in residential neighborhoods by inhibiting through trips by the use of cul-de-sacs, one-way streets, and other traffic controls. 14.2.17 Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise compatibility criteria and noise contours as defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the SBIA and depicted in Figure LU-4 14.2.18 Limit the development of sensitive land uses located within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour, as defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the SBIA and depicted in Figure LU-4. 14.2.19 As may be necessary, require acoustical analysis and ensure the provision of effective noise mitigation measures for sensitive land uses, especially residential uses, in areas significantly impacted by noise. Appendix 1 of the General Plan contains Implementation Measures of the General Plan, including a requirement to mitigate new road projects that increase the noise by 3 dBA; a 5 dBA increase is allowed if the noise would stay within the goals of the existing Noise Element. The Goals are understood to be the land use compatibility guidance provided in Figure N-1 (page 14.5) of the Noise Element. Given the many policies listed above from the Noise, any increase in the noise environment could be considered potentially significant. Per CEQA3, the ISMND must clearly show that the mitigation would eliminate potentially significant effects: Figure 1 CEQA Section 15070(b) Response B.2: The City has adopted specific requirements for Warehousing and those requirements have been implemented into the site plan. Follow-up comment: There is no language in the ISMND that indicates what these specific requirements are or how they would reduce noise in any quantitative measure. In Section 2.6 Project Approvals section, discretionary approvals and additional permits are mentioned without any 3 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IA1DEFD80D48811DEBC02831C6D6C108E? WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 4 indication that noise controls or noise limits are included. Section 13 which addresses noise impacts makes no mention of warehouse-specific policies or constraints that would limit noise or vibration. Impact Analyses are Incomplete Noise sensitive receptors are not adequately identified The noise analysis for the ISMND lacks assessment at many noise sensitive uses, including, but not limited to: homes to the north of the project, homes south of E Central Avenue, and the church near the southeast corner of S. Waterman Avenue and E Central Avenue. There is no discussion of the truck route(s), and thus potential noise sensitive receptors affected by off-site noise impacts cannot be readily identified. The construction noise analysis is incorrect. The construction noise analysis on page 74 (of 108) only addresses noise at one residence to the east at 175 ft distance. In the paragraph under short-term construction impacts, the ISMND states that the “Project site is located adjacent to the I-10, Waterman Avenue and Central Avenue with high ambient noise levels.” As there are no noise measurements, there is no evidence to document that the noise levels at any of the noise sensitive uses are “high”. Furthermore, at 3 miles from I-10, this project is not “adjacent” to I-10. The ISMND presents noise levels from construction equipment in Table 10, however the far right column extrapolates the equipment noise to an arbitrary distance of 1,000 ft, which has no relevance to the project. There is no calculation shown to combine the construction equipment, and the ISMND lacks any basis to claim that “(a)ll construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously at a construction area nearest to sensitive receptors.” Without any knowledge of the baseline noise environment, and without clear significance thresholds, there is no basis for the ISMND’s claim that short-term construction noise would be less than significant. The ISMND cites the City’s prohibition of nighttime operations of certain types of equipment, “except with the approval of the City.” Given the proximity of noise sensitive uses, the ISMND must clarify that the City will grant no such permission. The ISMND lacks any discussion of the operation phase of the project The warehouse, office, and wholesale areas would presumably require air-conditioning. Based on the air quality analysis, no refrigeration would be provided. The hours of operation would be Monday- Saturday 7 AM to 6 PM, and thus noise from late night activities would not appear to be an issue. However, if refrigeration is a possibility, those units could operate 24/7, and the nighttime noise impact would require evaluation for conformance with the City’s Noise Ordinance limit (65 dBA at the exterior and 45 dBA at the interior), and also evaluate the Ldn against the policies of the Noise Element. Typically, the thermostat settings will have an operational setpoint to provide a tempered space by the time the building opens at 7 AM. During winter months it may be necessary to operate the building HVAC between 6 AM and 7 AM. which is typically considered part of the “nighttime”. In our experience there would be several mechanical units on the rooftop. Such equipment could include air cooled condenser fans with a typical sound rating of 85 sound power level (PWL), and several make up air fans as large as 40,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) (90 dBA PWL). A combination of two or more fans would generate a noise level on the order of 45 dBA to a distance of 200 ft. WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 5 Loading docks are shown at the northside of the project on page 20 of 108. These loading docks would be approximately 250 ft away from residences, and backup beeper, idling and other truck noises could be potentially significant if there were to be nighttime operations. The project would generate 44 truck trips, which would add up to 88 trucks on nearby roads (in/out access). If these trucks would access the drive aisle along the right side of the project, the trucks would potentially increase the noise a significant amount at nearby noise sensitive receptors. Accelerating trucks moving through the intersection at Waterman and Central and at other points along the truck route(s) could also increase the noise at other noise sensitive receptors. Response B.3: The letter alleges the initial study does not address impacts on existing adjacent uses. The project site previously allowed for two warehouse buildings and the associated noise. Follow-up comment: As noted above regarding Response B.1 the IS/MND fails to ascertain the existing baseline in any manner or acknowledge how the present day noise may differ from that environment prior to the fire. There is no documentation that confirms the prior use was compatible. The initial study does identify surrounding uses. The adjacent residential properties have a residential land use designation and are not a compatible use with the existing land use and zoning. Follow-up comment: The “adjacent residential properties are residential”, and thus this CEQA process provides an opportunity to identify necessary measures to bring the Project site to be compatible with the neighboring uses. This is precisely the purpose for which this process is intended. If the Project as proposed would be incompatible with the adjacent residential land use, even with mitigation, then an EIR would be required to allow public discourse on these issues. There is a statement that all calculations for construction noise are to a distance of 1,000 feet. That is a standard unit of measure in analysis … Follow-up comment: This is not true. The standard of care is to evaluate the noise at the nearest sensitive receptors. The ISMND cites the FTA for the guidance it provides on construction noise (which originates with the Federal Highway Administration) and construction vibration. In its discussion regarding quantitative construction noise analysis, the FTA provides Equation 7-1 which scales the distance from the reference distance of 50 ft (listed in Table 10 of the ISMND) to the receiver. … and although there are receptors within the 1,000 foot mark, these will be temporary impacts in nature, limited to daytime hours. Follow-up comment: As we raised in our prior comments (above), CEQA requires an ISMND to identify potentially significant noise, even if it is temporary. There is no language in CEQA or in the referenced FTA document that is supportive of dismissing noise impacts merely because they are temporary. The Project Characteristics section of the ISMND are not specific as to the duration of activities such as demolition, grading, and construction, but it appears that the entirety of demolition and construction would require more than 13 months as described on page 13 of the ISMND. As noted in item 13.a the ISMND (page 71), the CEQA checklist asks whether the project WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 6 would result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? We re-iterate that the construction noise, while temporary, must be addressed quantitatively to determine whether the noise increase above the ambient would be substantial. As the ISMND lacks any discussion of the total construction noise, there is no evidence to support its claim that the construction noise would be less than significant. For example, on page 74 the ISMND states falsely that the “(c)onstruction noise generated on the Project site is not anticipated to affect exterior noise levels of sensitive receptors.” The table below shows the equipment noise levels adjusted for the distance of nearest residences which are as close as 120 ft from the nearest building, and even closer to the property line of the project. The ISMND cites a distance of 175 ft to the nearest single family residence to the East, which appears to be incorrect. 388 E. Central is 135 ft from the property line. The ISMND notes that lumping all of the equipment together at the closest distance represents a “worst-case scenario”. Also shown in Table 1 is the noise level from a group of the five highest level construction equipment, and the lowest (minimum), resulting in a more typical range of 78 to 86 dBA Leq on an hourly basis at the closest residence. Over a 24- hour period, if the construction noise occurs between 8 AM and 7 PM (in compliance with the time limits on pile driving equipment, since there do not appear to be any time limits on construction activities), this typical range would be 75 to 83 CNEL. This falls in the “clearly unacceptable” range for residential land use, per Figure N-1 of the San Bernardino Noise General Plan. See Figure 2. Figure 2 Excerpt from the Noise Element of the San Bernardino General Plan WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 7 Table 1 Construction Equipment Noise at the Nearest Residences Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) At 50 feet from source 388 E Central residence 125 ft 711 S Waterman residences 120 ft Air Compressor 80 72 72 Backhoe 80 72 72 Compactor 82 74 74 Concrete Mixer 85 77 77 Concrete Pump 82 74 74 Concrete Vibrator 76 68 68 Crane, Derrick 88 80 80 Crane, Mobile 83 75 75 Dozer 85 77 77 Generator 82 74 74 Grader 85 77 77 Impact Wrench 85 77 77 Jack Hammer 88 80 80 Loader 80 72 72 Paver 85 77 77 Pneumatic Tool 85 77 77 Pump 77 69 69 Roller 85 77 77 Saw 76 68 68 Scraper 85 77 77 Shovel 82 74 74 Truck 84 76 76 All Equipment together 89 90 Highest five 85 86 Lowest five 77 78 The letter also refers to the allowance for an exception to allow construction operation at nighttime with prior City approval. We would like to add that the project would not include any night time construction activities night given the proximity to residential uses. Follow-up comment: Noted. Noise Mitigations are Lacking Construction noise and loading dock noise would be potentially significant impacts, and suitable mitigation could include: WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 8  Temporary sound walls along the Project perimeter during construction that block line of sight and provide sufficient reduction to eliminate the noise impact  Time limits on truck activities during construction and operations  Truck routing requirements Response B.3: The letter alleges that operation impacts were not included and therefore mitigated. Operational impacts are mitigated through the incorporation of all City warehousing requirements and the City noise ordinance, which reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Follow-up comment: CEQA requires an analysis that clearly shows the impacts and the effectiveness of the mitigations. There is no evidence provided in the ISMND to support the claim that all operational impacts are mitigated. Conclusions The Response to Comments document is not responsive to almost all of the issues previously raised. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information. Very truly yours, WILSON IHRIG Deborah A. Jue, INCE-USA Principal amazing 24 ismnd rtc_noise review_wilson ihrig_ 091422.docx ATTACHMENT C Via E-mail April 28, 2022 Travis Martin Community & Economic Development Department City of San Bernardino 201 N. E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 Martin_tr@sbcity.org Re: Comment on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project Dear Mr. Martin: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project, including all actions related or referring to the proposed demolition of two onsite warehouse distribution buildings, and construction of a single new distribution warehouse totaling approximately 89,475 square feet located at 791 South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino (“Project”). After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of San Bernardino (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. This comment has been prepared with the assistance of expert consulting firm RK Engineering and expert wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. RK Engineering’s and Dr. Smallwood’s comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B and C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project is described as involving the demolition of two warehouses which it states are currently on the Project site in order to construct a single new distribution warehouse. The site is 3.84 acres and will consist of a 77,562 s quare foot (sf) warehouse, 7,353 sf of warehouse mezzanine, and 4,560 sf of wholesale and office space. There are single-family homes directly east and north of the Project site. The April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 2 of 9 project will require a zoning amendment from Office Industrial Park to Industrial Light. The MND states that construction is estimated to begin on July 15, 2022 and end on September 1, 2023. II. LEGAL STANDARD As the Supreme Court held, “If no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320, citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491, 504–505. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutor y language.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 927. An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d) (emphasis added); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego, 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440 (1989). CEQA contains a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927 (emphasis in original). April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 3 of 9 III. DISCUSSION A. The City Has Allowed Project Development Prior to the Certification of the Final MND, Thereby Undermining the Fundamental Purpose of CEQA – To Require Consideration of Environmental Factors Prior to Project Implementation. The MND states that “[t]he Project involves the demolition of existing warehouse building [sic] to make way for a single new distribution warehouse . . .” MND, p. 11. Additionally, the MND section on Existing Conditions states that “[t]he Project site is currently developed with 2 warehouse distribution buildings to be demolished.” MND, p. 9. However, a search of the Project site on Google Maps demonstrates that the site had in fact been cleared of the two buildings as of at least August 2021. See Screenshots of property, Exhibit A. Additionally, expert wildlife biologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., conducted a site review of the Project site on April 25, 2022 and found that “where buildings once stood, only vacant pads remained” on site. Smallwood Report, Exhibit C, p. 1; Photo 1, p.2 (showing a view of the project site upon which there are currently no buildings). The MND’s description of the Project as involving demolition of warehouses onsite, and its description of existing conditions as including two warehouses onsite is therefore false and misleading. CEQA is first and foremost designed to require governmental decisionmakers to consider the environmental impacts of their actions before proceeding with a proposed project. The City violated this most fundamental requirement of CEQA by allowing developers to commence demolition of buildings for the proposed project before the mitigated negative declaration was certified, and before the document had been circulated for public consideration and comment. In so doing, the City has undermined the basic goals of CEQA. CEQA states that the lead agency must consider public comment on the negative declaration “prior to carrying out or approving a project for which a negative declaration has been adopted.” CEQA § 21091(e). Requiring early consideration of environmental impacts allows the decisionmaker to require more environmentally beneficial project alternatives or mitigation measures at a point when true flexibility remains. CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the "earliest possible stag e . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum," (Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm., (1975)13 Cal.3d 263, 277), "at a point in the planning process 'where genuine flexibility remains.'" Sundstrom v. Mendocino County, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307. The City violated this basic tenet of CEQA law by allowing site demolition to commence prior to the circulation of the MND. In so doing, the City effectively deprived the public of its right to "have an appropriate voice in the formulation of any decision [affecting the environment]." Environmental Plannning v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 354. April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 4 of 9 B. The MND Fails to Provide an Accurate Project Description. An accurate and stable project description is a bedrock requirement of CEQA, as demonstrated by the Court in the case of County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles: Only through an accurate view of the project may af fected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192-93. The ability of informed citizens to participate in environmental review is a key component of CEQA. Washoe, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at 285 [“Informed public participation is essential to environmental review under CEQA.”]; Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192 [“The EIR process facilitates CEQA’s policy of supplying citizen input.”]. Through the EIR process, CEQA “provide[s] public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment.” Washoe, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at 286 [quoting Pub. Res. Code § 21061]. As discussed above, the MND describes the Project as including demolition of two buildings onsite, but those buildings have already been demolished . The Project’s description therefore fails to meet CEQA standards. The City must prepare a revised MND, or an EIR which includes an accurate project description. C. The MND Incorrectly Reports the Project’s Baseline Environmental Conditions, Therefore its Analysis of Impacts is Inadequate. Before analyzing a project’s impacts, an EIR must first identify and describe “the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” 14 CCR § 15125(a). This information is critical to the EIR's impact analysis because it serves as the baseline against which a project’s predicted effects can be described and quantified. 14 CCR § 15125(a); Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 447 (Smart Rail). A description of important environmental resources that will be adversely affected by the project is critical to a legally adequate discussion of the environmental setting, and emphasis is to be placed on rare or unique environmenta l resources when describing the environmental setting. 14 CCR § 15125(c); San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722-30 [description of the environmental setting deficient because it did not disclose the s pecific location and extent of riparian habitat adjacent to the property, inadequately investigated the possibility of wetlands on the site, understated the significance of the project's location adjacent to a river, and failed to discuss a nearby wildlife preserve].) April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 5 of 9 Courts have repeatedly held that where an EIR contains an “inadequate description of the environmental setting for the project, a proper analysis of project impacts [i]s impossible.” Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1122 [invalidating EIR with only passing references to surrounding viticulture]; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 873-75. “[T]he impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-125. As the court has explained, using such a skewed baseline “mislead(s) the public” and “draws a red herring across the path of public input.” San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711. Here, the City has analyzed almost all environmental impacts in the MND assuming that there are two warehouses currently onsite which will be demolished as part of the Project. All of the sections which rely on this improper baseline are therefore inadequate, and the City must prepare a revised MND or an EIR which accurately assesses the Project’s impacts. D. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Energy Impacts That the IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate. RK Engineering Group (RK) conducted a peer review of the MND from an energy impact standpoint and provided comments. RK Engineering’s comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit B and summarized below. 1. The MND Fails to Adequately Discuss Renewable Energy Sources. RK Engineering found that the MND did not discuss whether renewable energy sources could be incorporated into the project. Ex. B, p. 2. In failing to do so, the MND failed to adequately evaluate energy impacts, and a potentially significant impact may therefore occur. Id. In support of its conclusions, RK points to a recent California court case, League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation, et al. v. County of Placer, et al. (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 63 (League to Save Lake Tahoe), in which the court ruled that an EIR should “address the project’s potential to increase its use of renewable energy sources.” Id. at 1. RK states that this ruling is consistent with CEQA Guidelines on energy, which state that “the means of achieving energy conservation includes decreasing the reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.” Id. at 2. In failing to discuss renewable energy, the MND has failed to adequately analyze energy impacts, and the City should prepare an EIR which does so. April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 6 of 9 2. The MND Fails to Consider and Implement all Feasible Mitigation Measures. RK recommends a number of mitigation measures which could be implemented for the Project to ensure that it would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Ex. B, p. 2. RK’s recommendations stem from the California Attorney General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice’s letter on Warehouse Projects, which provides recommendations on best practices and mitigation for reduction of energy consumption. Id.; see also, State of California, Department of Justice, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf. RK concludes that “[b]y not incorporating all feasible mitigation measures, the project has the potential to result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy.” Id. at 5. An EIR should be prepared for the Project which adequately assesses the Projec t’s energy impacts and potential mitigation measures. E. The Project Will Have Significant Adverse Biological Impacts That the IS/MND Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. reviewed the IS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s biological impacts, in addition to conducting a site visit of the Project site. Dr. Smallwood’s comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit C and his comments are briefly summarized here. 1. The IS/MND is inadequate in its characterization of the existing environmental setting as it relates to wildlife. Dr. Smallwood’s analysis of the Project’s impacts is supported by a site visit that he conducted on April 25, 2022. Ex. C, p. 1. Dr. Smallwood reconnoitered the area for 1 hour and 50 minutes at 6:14 am, and for another hour starting at 10:18 am, both times with the use of binoculars. Id. During that visit, he observed the presence of 22 species of vertebrate wildlife at and near the Project site, two of which are special-status species. Id., see Ex. B, Table 1, p. 3. Dr. Smallwood found that the site “composed an island of open space that would attract any wildlife in search of breeding opportunities, forage, or stop-over opportunities during long-distance travel.” Id. at 2. Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Dr. Smallwood found that the IS/MND was incomplete and inaccurate in its characterization of environmental setting due to an inadequate biological survey and a review of literature and databases that was too cursory. Ex. C, p. 8-21. The biological survey for the IS/MND was prepared by Gonzales Environmental Consulting in June 2021 (GEC Report). The GEC Report only detected a fraction of the species identified by Dr. Smallwood, despite having surveyed the area for a longer April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 7 of 9 period of time and having had direct access to the site . Ex. C, p. 8. Notably, Dr. Smallwood pointed out that the GEC Report did not record having seen signs of pocket gophers, which Dr. Smallwood observed were numerous, including ones that were spilling onto the sidewalk. Id., see also, Photo 11, p. 10. Dr. Smallwood concluded that his findings demonstrate that there is a fair argument that an EIR should be prepared to accurately characterize the environmental baseline and properly assess impacts to wildlife. Id. at 8. Dr. Smallwood also identified flaws in the IS/MND’s review of databases. Ex. C, p. 15. The GEC Report only reviewed the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) and inappropriately used it to screen out special-status species from further consideration. Id. at 15-16. Dr. Smallwood looked at additional databases that are useful to determine presence and likelihood of presence, such as eBird and iNaturalist. Id. Based on that review, he identified 99 special-status species that could potentially occur on-site, as compared to the GEC Report’s 41. Id.; see also Table 2, p. 17-20. Ultimately, Dr. Smallwood found that “[t]he site provides one of the few remaining opportunities in the region for wildlife to find breeding substrate and opportunities to forage and stop-over during travel.” Id. at 21. A skewed baseline such as the one used by the City here ultimately “mislead(s) the public” by engendering inaccurate analyses of environmental impacts, mitigation measures and cumulative impacts for biological resources. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center, 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 656; Woodward Park Homeowners, 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 708-711. This inaccurate baseline and the species identified by Dr. Smallwood warrants discussion and analysis in an EIR to ensure species are accurately detected and that any impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. 2. The IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding capacity. Dr. Smallwood found that the Project would contribute to a decline in birds in North America, a trend that has been happening over the last approximately 50 years largely due to habitat loss and fragmentation and would be further exacerbated by this project. Ex. C, p. 21. Based on studies on the subject, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the presence of the Project on the site could lead to as many as 66 bird nests lost annually. Id. He further found that the reproductive capacity of the site would be lost, as the Project would prevent 191 fledglings per year, which would in turn contribute to the lost capacity of 217 birds per year. Id. at 22. Because this impact was not addressed in the IS/MND and Dr. Smallwood has presented substantial evidence of a fair argument that habitat loss will impact species, the City must prepare an EIR to analyze the impact. 3. The IS/MND fails to analyze the project’s impact to wildlife movement. April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 8 of 9 Dr. Smallwood found that the IS/MND falsely claimed to have performed analyses to determine whether the Project would adversely impact wildlife movement. Ex. C, p. 22. Despite the MND’s claims, it “identifie[d] no seasonal foraging grounds, nor does it provide any foundation for analysis of genetic exchange among populations. And in fact, no level of demographic organization is characterized for any species of wildlife in the area, nor is there any description of how and to where wildlife move, disperse, or migrate in the area.” Id. Based on his assessment of the site, Dr. Smallwood determined that due to the multiple species of wildlife residing onsite, the majority of which are breeding, there would be offspring needing to disperse from the site, as well as other species which would need to come to the site to breed and persist. Id. He concluded that “[a]s one of the last remaining patches of open space in the region, it is likely very important to wildlife movement,” and an EIR should be prepared to properly analyze this impact. Id. 4. The IS/MND fails to analyze the project’s impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project. According to the IS/MND, the Project will generate 913,213 annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). Ex. C. p. 24. Yet the IS/MND provides no analysis of the impacts on wildlife that will be caused by the traffic on the roadways servicing the Project. Vehicle collisions with special-status species is not a minor issue, but rather results in the death of millions of species each year. Dr. Smallwood explains: 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. The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. Ex. C, p. 22, 24. Using the IS/MND’s estimates of VMT as a basis, Dr. Smallwood was able to predict the impacts to wildlife that could be caused by the project. Id. at 24. Using the data from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, Dr. Smallwood calculates that operation of the Project over 50 years would cause an accumulated 10,000 wildlife fatalities. Id. He therefore states that “the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife.” Id. at 25. An EIR should be prepared which includes an analysis and mitigation of the result increased traffic from the Project will have on wildlife. April 28, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 9 of 9 5. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the cumulative impacts of the Project on wildlife. The GEC Report prepared for the MND provided a discussion of cumulative impacts which Dr. Smallwood determined was inapplicable to the Project. Ex. C, p. 25. Specifically, the GEC Report stated that some habitats would only be temporarily disturbed, and that some surviving species would return to the disturbed site following construction activity. Id. However, Dr. Smallwood states that “none of the soils and vegetation on the site would remain, because the site would be covered by impervious surfaces” and therefore “[w]ildlife would be unable to return to the site.” Id. The GEC Report also concludes that the site features disturbed habitat, thereby limiting its value to native plant and animal species. Id. Dr. Smallwood notes that “[w]ildlife communities worldwide have been disturbed by human activities, so the mere fact that the site has been disturbed cannot preclude use of the site by wildlife.” Id. Further, Dr. Smallwood’s observations demonstrate that species do in fact use the site. Id. An EIR should be prepared to adequately analyze potential cumulative impacts to wildlife caused by the Project. As for the proposed mitigation measures, Dr. Smallwood states that while preconstruction surveys should be conducted for birds and burrowing owls, they represent only a “last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operation[] targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery.” Id. These surveys would therefore fail to detect most species. Id. at 25-26. As for the mitigation measures MM BIO-3 to BIO-5, Dr. Smallwood agrees that these are best practices, but that they would “do little to nothing to mitigate impacts to wildlife.” Id. at 26. Dr. Smallwood recommends several measures, including detection surveys and compensatory mitigation, which he states should be considered in an EIR for the Project. Id. at 27. 6. CONCLUSION In light of the above comments, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Amalia Bowley Fuentes LOZEAU DRURY LLP EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B April 28, 2022 Amalia Bowley Fuentes LOZEAU DRURY LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Peer Review of Amazing 34 Distribution Center Energy Impact Analysis, City of San Bernardino Dear Ms. Bowley Fuentes: Introduction RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. (RK) is pleased to provide this review of the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, City of San Bernardino, April 2022 (hereinafter referred to as IS/MND). The purpose of this letter is to review the IS/MND from an energy impact standpoint and provide comments to help ensure that all potential impacts from the project are adequately identified and the effects mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Energy Comments The following comments pertain to the evaluation of Energy impacts within the IS/MND. 1. Page 53. Energy. In the recent California court case, League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain Area Preservation Foundation, et al. v. County of Placer, et al., the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that an EIR should address the project’s potential to increase its use of renewable energy sources for at least two purposes. First, when the EIR analyzes the project’s energy use to determine if it creates significant effects, it should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project. Second, when determining if a project would have a potentially significant impact to energy conservation, the analysis should discuss whether any renewable energy features could be incorporated into the project, and if applicable, mitigate the impact by requiring uses of alternate fuels, particularly renewable ones. LOZEAU DRURY LLP RK 17331 Page 2 rk17331.doc JN:3040-2022-01 The court’s ruling is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F, Energy Conservation requirements, which state that the means of achieving energy conservation includes decreasing the reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The energy impact analysis presented on Page 53 of the IS/MND does not discuss whether renewable energy sources could be incorporated into the project. Hence, the analysis has not adequately evaluated the energy impact, and by failing to incorporate renewable energy sources, a potentially significant impact may occur. To adequately address the issue, and to ensure the potential impact is adequately mitigated, the IS/MND should identify the impact as potentially significant and include a mitigation measure that requires the project to install roof top solar panels. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6, Section 110.10(b)1.B.) requires that no less than 15 percent of the total roof area of the building shall be designated as a Solar Zone1. Therefore, a mitigation requirement to install solar panels across the full extent of the designated rooftop Solar Zone would seem feasible. 2. Additional Energy Mitigation Measures. Additional mitigation measures should be implemented to help ensure that the project does not result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy. The California Attorney General’s Bureau of Environmental Justice (Bureau) released the comment letter, Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, to help lead agencies pursue CEQA compliance and promote environmentally-just development2. The Bureau’s letter provides recommendations for feasible best practices and mitigation measures that would help reduce energy consumption. 1 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Section 100.1 – Definitions and Rules of Construction. A “Solar Zone” is defined as is a section of the roof designated and reserved for the future installation of a solar electric or solar thermal system. 2 State of California. Department of Justice. Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Website (Accessed April 2022): https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/warehouse-best-practices.pdf LOZEAU DRURY LLP RK 17331 Page 3 rk17331.doc JN:3040-2022-01 The Bureau recommends that local jurisdictions should consider designing projects with the necessary infrastructure to prepare for the zero-emission future of goods movement. The following examples of mitigation measures recommended by the Bureau would help reduce the project’s consumption of fossil fuels and encourage renewable energy usage: • Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030. • Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations. • Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use. • Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager. • Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project. • Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration. LOZEAU DRURY LLP RK 17331 Page 4 rk17331.doc JN:3040-2022-01 • Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project. • Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single-occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking. • Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area. • Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. LOZEAU DRURY LLP RK 17331 Page 5 rk17331.doc JN:3040-2022-01 • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. • Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets. According to the Bureau, the overwhelming majority of mitigation measures recommended above have been adapted from actual warehouse projects in California. Hence, they are considered feasible mitigation measures. Conclusions Based upon this review, the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, City of San Bernardino, April 2022, has not adequately analyzed the potential energy impact of the project from a renewable energy perspective and not all feasible mitigation measures have been implemented. By not incorporating all feasible mitigation measures, the project has the potential to result in wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy, and a potentially significant impat under CEQA would occur. The project should implement all feasible mitigation measures listed in this letter, including the installation of roof top solar panels, in order to ensure the impact to energy conservation is reduced to a less than significant level. RK Engineering Group, Inc appreciates this opportunity to work with LOZEAU DRURY LLP. If you have any questions regarding our review, or need additional analysis, please contact us at (949) 474-0809. Respectfully submitted, RK ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. Bryan Estrada, AICP Principal Qualification Statement The Complete Range of Transportation Engineering Expertise RK engineering group, inc. is a complete transportation engineering firm offering the full range of services including: • Transportation Planning • Traffic Engineering • Traffic Impact Studies • Circulation Elements • Transit/Pedestrian Systems • Parking Studies • Traffic Signal and Signing/Striping Plans • Traffic Control Plans • Street Lighting Plans • Community Traffic Calming • Traffic Signal Timing RK engineering group, inc. also integrates transportation, air quality and noise impacts into environmental engineering services including: • Acoustical Studies • Sound Barrier Analysis • Noise Elements • Noise Ordinance Compliance • Air Quality Studies The Right Personnel for the Job RK engineering group, inc.’s staff represent more than 70 years of cumulative experience in traffic engineering and related disciplines. Beyond this experience, RK engineering group, inc. personnel are recognized leaders in the fields of transportation planning, traffic impact analysis, circulation planning, multi-modal planning, parking studies, and environmental engineering. The combination of this experience and expertise means that major program assignments and small technical studies are all successfully completed to the satisfaction of RK engineering group, inc.’s clientele. Quality Work Attracts Quality Clients Perhaps the best measure of a firm’s capabilities is the quality of the clientele it attracts. RK engineering group, inc. is pleased to count among its satisfied clientele the Orange County Transportation Authority, and the Transportation Corridor Agencies as well as the counties of Orange and Riverside. Municipal clients have included the cities of Canyon Lakes, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Mammoth, Mission Viejo, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Perris, Rancho Santa Margarita, and San Juan Capistrano. Institutional clientele have included a range of school districts as well as respected institutions like the University of California, Irvine; Pomona College, Western State University College of Law, and California Baptist College. Community Association clients include the CZ Master Association in Coto de Caza, Aliso Viejo Community Association and numerous other associations. RK engineering group, inc.’s client list also includes more than 500 private sector companies ranging from developers and engineers to urban planners. RK engineering group, inc. uniquely combines engineering expertise and professionalism with creative thinking and innovative problem solving. The result is an extraordinary transportation engineering firm that possesses the requisite expertise as well as the ability to look across disciplinary boundaries for solutions others may overlook. This innovative approach is evident by the breadth of services available to RK engineering group, inc.’s diverse clientele that includes regional governments, counties, cities, special districts, school districts, community associations, private developers and contractors, engineering and planning firms. Each client receives what RK engineering group, inc. is known for…on time, on target, on budget professional service. Page 1 of 3 Qualification Statement Traffic Impact Analysis RK engineering group, inc. staff have prepared several hundred traffic impact studies throughout Southern and Central California, as well as Southern Nevada, Arizona and Colorado. Work products provided by the firm includes conceptual planning/feasibility studies or detailed design recommendations. The firm can evaluate both existing conditions and the effects of future development upon infrastructure requirements. RK engineering group, inc. staff have prepared numerous studies in compliance with Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements. RK engineering group, inc. responsibilities can include representing clients at Board of Supervisors, City Council and Planning/Traffic Commissions meetings; serving as a liaison with company/public agency representatives on technical matters involving traffic impacts; working with County, regional and state agencies to secure government approvals and funding for projects; and interfacing with other firms to provide coordination of engineering/planning and design of projects. Circulation Planning RK engineering group, inc. has a broad range of experience including city general plan circulation elements, specific plans, traffic control assessments for special attractions or major events, site access evaluations, traffic management plans and fee program studies. RK engineering group, inc. services include the preparation of neighborhood traffic management plans to reduce volumes on residential streets, minimize vehicle speeds, and address "cut through" traffic issues. Traffic calming solutions which have been addressed are based on design and management strategies that aim to allow safer neighborhoods for residents. These solutions include roundabouts, street closures, speed humps, chokers, and access restrictions. RK engineering group, inc. also provides services for school districts. These services include, but are not limited to sidewalk improvements, pedestrian and bicycle crosswalks, traffic control devices as well as diversion of traffic. Also, other services may include revising and recommending feasible school circulation as well as parking lot design for designation of “pick-up” and “drop-off” parking zones. This service is intended to provide a safe route of travel and a safe traffic environment for children attending schools. Transportation Demand Management Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies designated for local government action have taken on increased importance in light of federal conformity requirements. Many local governments have adopted trip reduction ordinances to comply with the state and federal mandates. RK engineering group, inc. has prepared TDM plans for industrial, office, retail and residential projects throughout Southern California. RK engineering group, inc. services include the determination of appropriate transportation control measures as well as project- specific implementation and monitoring strategies. Transit Planning The increasingly intermodal aspects of regional and local transportation are being addressed by RK engineering group, inc. on an integrated basis. RK engineering group, inc. staff have prepared detailed studies of on-road and rail transit services, including corridors and stations. RK engineering group, inc. has provided assessments of the location, design and travel patterns associated with commuter rail stations in Orange County, San Bernardino County and Kern County. Accommodations for public transportation services, such as bus turnouts and pedestrian access linkages, have been incorporated into many large and small development projects based upon RK engineering group, inc. inputs. Page 2 of 3 Qualification Statement Parking Studies RK engineering group, inc. has completed a number of parking studies for residential, commercial and industrial developments. Studies have included evaluating existing parking demand and the assessment of "shared parking" through the use of ULI shared parking evaluation procedures. Parking management plans have been developed to control parking for high parking generators (i.e. large institutional uses and special events including raceways and concerts). RK engineering group, inc. develops creative and innovative methods for maximizing the efficiency of available parking resources. Re-evaluating existing parking facility designs to improve circulation, safety, modify control operations and maximization of parking spaces is also a specialty of the company. Environmental Engineering As communities continue to evolve and develop, environmental noise and air quality impacts are a potential by-product of community expansion. RK engineering group, inc.. services include EIR air/noise studies, noise contour analysis, noise exposure maps (NEM), air/noise impact studies, community and environmental air/noise planning and noise mitigation design. The effects of traffic on noise and air quality are a significant by-product of roadway design. Robert Kahn, P.E. a Certified Acoustical Engineer (No. 112-88) in the County of Orange and is supported by Michael Dickerson, INCE (Institute of Noise Control Engineers) member. RK engineering group, inc. services include acoustical studies, truck mix studies, noise control assessments and noise mitigation design. RK engineering group, inc. uses "state of the art" computer modeling to project noise impacts and also has the equipment to perform field measurements. Traffic Engineering RK engineering group, inc. provides a full range of traffic engineering capabilities including the design of traffic signals, signing and striping, street lighting and worksite traffic control plans. RK engineering group, inc. also provides studies for traffic signal warrants, weaving analysis, intersection safety studies and many other traffic engineering services that also include, but are definitely not limited to, pedestrian/ bicycle studies, warrant analysis, CA MUTCD compatibility and sight distance reviews. Work products provided by the firm can include concept plans, improvement plans, construction documents, traffic safety/traffic control studies and recommendations with respect to evaluating traffic control devices and other roadway design features. Traffic design plans are prepared using AutoCAD software to easily interface with other project plans. RK engineering group, inc. can prepare engineering studies to identify appropriate speed limits based upon radar speed surveys. Field review of existing conditions is an important element of the RK engineering group, inc. design process. RK engineering group, inc. provides services for traffic signal timing and coordination in linking traffic signals along a corridor. The goal of traffic signal coordination is to safely optimize driver travel times and traffic flow along arterial corridors. This efficient method of operating traffic control systems not only benefits public safety but also benefits air quality resulting from lower emissions from decreased stop-and- go traffic. Traffic signal timing and coordination is a beneficial and cost effective method that increases driver mobility while also reducing air pollution. By providing traffic signal and coordination services, RK engineering group, inc. continues to aid cities and agencies in effectively reducing traffic congestion delay and air pollution. RK engineering group, inc. responsibilities can also include providing complete traffic engineering plans, specifications and cost estimates; evaluating existing traffic conditions, including traffic control devices; recommending appropriate speed limits based upon radar speed studies, accident history and existing physical conditions; reviewing the need for traffic control devices; sight distance evaluations, including before and after project implementation; evaluation of the need for speed humps as an appropriate roadway design feature and other traffic engineering functions. Page 3 of 3 Bryan Estrada, AICP, PTP Principal Areas of Expertise Transportation and Environmental Planning Transportation Demand Management Traffic Impact Studies Parking Studies Air Quality Analysis Greenhouse Gas/Global Climate Change Analysis Environmental Acoustics/Noise Analysis CEQA Compliance Synchro Traffic Analysis Software California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) FHWA Noise Modeling SoundPLAN Software AutoCAD Education and Training University of California, Irvine, B.A., Urban Studies California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Training Program Geo Instruments Vibration Monitoring Short Course Professional History RK Engineering Group, Inc. Principal 2007 - Present Certificates and Affiliations American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Professional Transportation Planner (PTP) American Planning Association Association of Environmental Professionals Representative Experience Mr. Bryan Estrada is a native of Southern California and also stayed in the area by attending the University of California, Irvine, School of Planning, Policy and Design where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Urban Studies. Mr. Estrada’s multidisciplinary background is concentrated around current transportation challenges and their environmental impacts within urban areas. Mr. Estrada is committed to sustainable development practices, transportation demand management, and global climate change awareness. Since 2007, Mr. Estrada has gained experience in the many aspects of Transportation and Environmental Planning while working with RK Engineering Group. He is an active member of the American Planning Association (APA) and the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), and stays up to date on the latest trends and topics concerning CEQA policy. He is frequently engaged with local government agencies, community groups, and developers to help to craft innovative solutions to mitigate traffic, noise and air quality impacts throughout the community. Mr. Estrada’s experience includes traffic/transportation planning, air quality and greenhouse gas analysis, and environmental acoustics/noise analysis. He has also contributed to the design and construction of traffic signal plans, signing and striping plans and traffic control plans. He is regularly out in the field performing assessments and inventories of project sites and meeting with community stakeholders. Mr. Estrada works on transportation and environmental planning projects that range from focused site-specific technical studies to regional and General Plan level analyses. His recent work includes Mixed Use Development projects in Downtown Huntington Beach, the City of Aliso Viejo General Plan Update and Aliso Viejo Town Center Vision Plan, Eleanor Roosevelt High School eStem Academy Traffic Impact Study and On-Site Circulation Plan (Eastvale, CA), Great Wolf Lodge Resort (Garden Grove, CA), Starbucks Coffee Shops (multiple locations through Southern California), Paradise Knolls Specific Plan (Jurupa Valley, CA), Vista Del Agua Specific Plan (Coachella, CA), and Monterey Park Hotel Mixed Use Development Project (Monterey Park, CA). Mr. Estrada has obtained the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) certification granted by the American Planning Association and the Professional Transportation Planner (PTP) certification granted by the Transportation Professional Certification Board. EXHIBIT C 1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Travis Martin, Associate Planner City of San Bernardino 201 North E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 28 April 2022 RE: Amazing 34 Distribution Center Dear Mr. Martin, I write to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Amazing 34 Distribution Center, which I understand would add a warehouse with 77,562 sf of floor space on 3.84 acres at 791 South Waterman Ave, San Bernardino, California (City of San Bernardino 2022). In support of my updated comments, I reviewed a habitat assessment prepared by Gonzales Environmental Consulting (GEC 2021). 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 subsequently worked for four years as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, interactions between wildlife and human infrastructure and activities, conservation of rare and endangered species, and on the ecology of invading species. I authored numerous papers on special-status species issues. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and the Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve been a part-time lecturer 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-five years, including at many proposed project sites. My CV is attached. SITE VISIT I visited the proposed project site for nearly 3 hours on 25 April 2022. I surveyed for 1 hour and 50 min starting at 06:14 hours and for another 1 hour starting at 10:18 hours. The weather was clear with no wind, and temperatures were 53° F at 06:18 and 80° F at 10:18. I used binoculars to scan for wildlife from the sidewalk along the western and southern perimeters of the site. Where buildings once stood, only vacant pads remained. Ruderal annual grassland covered most of the rest of the site, which included ornamental trees and shrubs (Photo 1). Pocket gophers were established within burrow systems wherever soil was not 2 covered by impervious surfaces, and of course whatever species of wildlife that live in those burrows in addition to pocket gophers were invisible to me. Warehouses were to the south, a commercial strip to the west, and homes were to the north and east. The site composed an island of open space that would attract any wildlife in search of breeding opportunities, forage, or stop-over opportunities during long-distance travel. Photo 1. Southeastward view of the site of the proposed project, 25 April 2022. I detected 22 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site (Table 1), including members of 2 special-status species. I saw at least 102 birds of 20 avian species, 2 feral house cats, and numerous burrow systems of Botta’s pocket gophers. I saw so many birds during my early morning survey that I decided to return for a mid-morning survey to assess whether I would get a similar result in warmer conditions. Whereas I saw 19 species during my first survey, I saw only 11 during my second, but among these 11 were an additional 3 species I had not seen earlier. I saw ample evidence of breeding, including birds in breeding plumage, birds carrying nest material, and birds delivering food to their nests. Birds also defended breeding territories, including an aggressive defense by American crows directed towards the red-tailed hawk that arrived to forage (Photos 1 and 2). I saw western tanagers and Cassin’s kingbirds (Photos 3 and 4), bushtits (Photo 5), northern mockingbirds and cedar waxwings (Photos 6 and 7), and ash-throated flycatchers and house finches (Photos 8 and 9). A black-crowned night-heron also selected the site as part of its travel route. 3 Table 1. Species of wildlife I observed during 2.83 hours of survey on 25 April 2022. Common name Scientific name Status Note Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax 1 flew over Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP 1 foraging Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 2 pair Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native 3 Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native 2 pair Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis 1 pair Cassin's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans 1 pair Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens 1 pair Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans 1 individual seen Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Flock of 15 European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native 20 House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native 18 Common raven Corvus corax 1 pair American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 2 pair Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 2 pair Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus 2 pair Bullock's oriole Icterus bulockii BCC 1 pair House finch Haemorphous mexicanus About 10 Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus 1 individual seen Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana 1 pair House cat Felis catus Non-native 2 Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Mounds everywhere 4 Photos 1 and 2. American crow (top) and red-tailed hawk (bottom) at the project site, 25 April 2022. As the red-tailed hawk arrived to forage on the site, the American crows converged on it to harass incessantly until the hawk left the premises. The hawk tried perching on a power pole, where it snuggled up against the pole for protection, but one of the crows repeatedly and effectively strafed the hawk until the hawk left. 5 Photos 3 and 4. Western tanager (left) and Cassin’s kingbird (right) at the project site, 25 April 2022. Photo 5. Bushtit checking me over from a fence on the project site, 25 April 2022. 6 Photos 6 and 7. Northern mockingbird at its nest site (left) and a flock of 15 cedar waxwings (below) at the project site, 25 April 2022. 7 Photos 8 and 9. Ash-throated flycatcher (left) and a few of the house finches feeding on common groundsel, fiddleneck and wild oats (below) on the project site, 25 April 2022. 8 CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. Methods to achieve this first step typically include surveys of the site for biological resources and reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species. In the case of this project, these essential steps remain grossly incomplete. Herein I provide some characterization of the wildlife community as a component of the current environmental setting, including the identification of special-status species likely to use the site at one time or another. On 26 and 30 June 2021, starting at 06:00 and 07:00 hours, respectively, 4 person- hours were committed to “General reconnaissance and habitat assessment surveys ... to determine habitat suitability for listed species and special status plant, wildlife, and aquatic species. Suitable habitat for listed species and special status species was determined by the presence of specific habitat elements. The surveys coincided with the period during which many wildlife species, including migratory species, would have been most detectable. A faunal inventory of all species observed during the course of the surveys was also prepared” (GEC 2021:25). And, “All wildlife species encountered during surveys were documented” (GEC 2021:26). In other words, the surveys were timed to detect wildlife, and all that was found was reported. Nevertheless, the consulting biologists reportedly saw only 10 birds representing 4 species, including mourning dove, common raven, house finch, and house sparrow. I saw 102 birds of 20 species of birds, or 10 times the number of birds representing 5 times the number of species reported by GEC (2021). Despite having spent longer than another person-hour than I spent at the site, and despite have direct access to the site, and despite the large sizes of some of the animals on site (see Photos 1 and 2) and the bright colors of some of the animals (Photo 10), the consulting biologists reportedly saw a tenth of the animals I saw and a fif th of the species. Despite the abundance of soil mounds and soil plugs all over the site, the consulting biologists somehow missed seeing signs of pocket gophers (Photo 11). There were so many mounds on site that the GEC biologists could not have walked over the site without taking care to avoid stumbling. It is therefore a wonder that the consulting biologists failed to see what was plainly visible – that the site is intensively used by numerous species of wildlife. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the current environmental setting as a baseline upon which to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife. 9 Photo 10. Western tanagers stood out on site due to their bright colors and energetic activities, 25 April 2022. 10 Photo 11. One of many soil mounds of Botta’s pocket gophers spilling out from the project site onto the surrounding sidewalks, 25 April 2022. According to the IS/MND (p. 45), “No special status animals were observed during field surveys.” This seemingly factual statement is actually pseudoscientific, because the surveys were not detection surveys, meaning they were not designed, nor were they performed, to provide reasonable probability of detection of any given special-status species. To their credit, GEC (2021:4) reported the caveat, “A circumstance of a negative result is not necessarily evidence that the species does not exist on the site or that the site is not actual or potential habitat of the species.” On this point, I agree with GEC. In fact, special-status species do occur at the project site. I saw as red-tailed hawk, which is a species of raptor protected by California Code referred to as Birds of Prey (FGC 3503.5). I also saw a Bullock’s oriole, which is listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a Bird Species of Conservation Concern. I failed to get any good photos of Bullock’s oriole on site, but I caught enough of one to document that it was a Bullock’s oriole (Photos 12 and 13). In summary, GEC did not detect any special-status species at the site, but I did. 11 Photos 12 and 13. Bullock’s oriole in a sycamore (left) just before flying to a palm tree on the east side of the site, 25 April 2022. Even after my more productive survey outcome compared to that of GEC, that portion of the current environmental setting composed of wildlife remains incompletely characterized. My detections of 22 species of vertebrate wildlife need to be interpreted within the context of the survey effort. As would be the case for any reconnaissance-level survey, the time I could commit to my survey was grossly short of the time needed to inventory all of the species that use the site. Observers are imperfect at detecting all species that occur within their surveyed space, and not all of the species that would occur in the surveyed space would occur there during the period of the observer’s survey. One should not expect that the biologist who just completed a reconnaissance- level survey actually detected more than a fraction of the species that use the site, and neither should a biologist claim to have detected more than a fraction of the species composing the wildlife community. A reconnaissance-level survey can be useful for confirming presence of the species that were detected, but it can also be useful for estimating the number of species that were not detected. One can model the pattern in species detections during a survey as a means to estimate the number of species that used the site but were undetected during the survey. To support such a modeling effort, the observer needs to record the times into the survey when each species was first detected. The cumulative number of species’ detections increases with increasing survey time, but eventually with diminishing returns (Figure 1). If survey time is represented by minutes into the survey, as it is in Figure 1, then minutes into the survey can also represent person-minutes. Person- minutes imply that >1 person can simultaneously survey a site, which is true, thereby allowing for the model to predict survey outcomes with more observers contributing more survey-minutes during the same survey period. This allowance can constrain model predictions to the environmental conditions experienced during the time period of the survey, thereby minimizing risk of model over-extension. In the case of my survey, the pattern in the data (Figure 1) predicts that had I more biologists to commit to my survey, we would have detected 59 species of vertebrate wildlife during the morning of 25 April 2022. This modeling approach is useful for more realistically representing the species richness of the site at the time of a survey, but it cannot represent the species richness throughout the year or across multiple years because 12 many species are seasonal or even multi-annual in their movement patterns and in their occupancy of habitat. Figure 1. Actual (red circles) and predicted (red line) relationships between the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected and the elapsed survey time based on my visual- scan surveys on 25 April 2022, and compared to the mean and 95% CI of 120 other surveys I performed at proposed project sites. Note that the relationship would differ if the survey was based on another method or during another season. Figure 1 also reveals that the richness of the wildlife community at the project site is lower than the average species richness at other proposed project sites I have visited across California over the past three years. Both the data and the best-fit model trailed the 95% lower bound of the confidence interval estimated from another 120 survey outcomes at other sites. Relative to other proposed project sites, the Amazing 34 site supports lower species richness, but the model nevertheless predicts 59 species could have been detected that very morning of the 25th had more biologists been available. The site supports plenty of species of wildlife, and there can be no doubt that it provides ample habitat value to wildlife. The site is richer in wildlife than implied in the IS/MND, but I could have detected more species than predicted by the patter of the data in Figure 1 had I also performed surveys at night to detect nocturnal and crepuscular species with appropriate methods and technology, or and conducting surveys in different seasons and years to detect migrants and species with multi-annual cycles of abundance. Nevertheless, based on the substantial evidence gathered during my reconnaissance-level survey, I conclude that the site is richer in wildlife than the 22 species I documented there so far, but also that the environmental setting of the project remains insufficiently characterized as foundation for analysis of impacts to special-status species. There is no question that a Minutes into surveyCumulative number of wildlife species detected0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Actual count of species Model prediction r2 = 0.97, loss = 15.6 95% CI of 129 visual- scan surveys 2018-2022 Y 13 larger survey effort would result in a longer list of species documented to use the project site, thereby improving our understanding of the current environmental setting. A more realistic representation of species richness at the site could be obtained by simply repeating visual-scan surveys on various dates through the year. 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 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 cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂=1 1 𝑎⁄+𝑎×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑟)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, 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. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I detected 12.24 species over the first 2.83 hours of surveys in the Altamont Pass (2.83 hours to match the number of hours I surveyed at the project site), which composed 21.5% of the total predicted species I would detect with a much larger survey effort. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 22 species I detected after my 2.83 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 21.5% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, I would likely detect 22 0.215⁄=102 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Again, however, my prediction of 102 species of vertebrate wildlife is derived from visual-scan surveys during the daytime, and would not detect nocturnal mammals. The true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. A reconnaissance-level survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of a site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. Without careful interpretation, the survey outcome of GEC should not serve as the foundation for characterizing baseline conditions, because there were truly many more species that used the site at the time of the survey than were detected by GEC. GEC managed to detect but a very small fraction of the wildlife community that occurs at the site, having detected only 4 of ≥102, or 3.9%. 14 Figure 2. Mean (95% CI) predicted wildlife species richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear function of hour-long survey increments across 46 visual-scan survey stations across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 2015‒2019. Additionally, the likelihood of detecting special-status species is typically lower than that of more common species. This difference can be explained by the fact that special- status species tend to be rarer and thus less detectable than common species. Special- status species also tend to be more cryptic, fossorial, or active during nocturnal periods when reconnaissance surveys are not performed. Another useful relationship from careful recording of species detections and subsequent comparative analysis is the probability of detection of listed species as a function of an increasing number of vertebrate wildlife species detected (Figure 3). (Note that listed species number fewer than special-status species, which are inclusive of listed species. Also note that I include California Fully Protected species and federal Candidate species as “listed” species.) 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 Cumulative number of surveys (hours)(95% CI) 15 Figure 3. Probability of detecting ≥1 Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species of wildlife listed under California or federal Endangered Species Acts, based on survey outcomes logit- regressed on the number of wildlife species I detected during 152 site visits in California. The vertical line represents the number of species I detected. As demonstrated in Figures 1 and 2, the number of species detected is largely a function of survey effort. Greater survey effort also increases the likelihood that listed species will be detected (which is the first tenet of detection surveys for special-status species). Based on the outcomes of 152 previous surveys I completed at sites of proposed projects, my survey effort at the project site carried an 25% chance of detecting a listed species, whereas the survey effort of GEC carried a 9.5% chance. GEC did not detect a listed species, nor did I, but the odds are than I would have had I performed another 3 surveys of equal effort at the site, whereas GEC would have done so after another 10 of their surveys. Listed species likely use the site, but documenting their use would take more survey effort to achieve a reasonable likelihood of detecting them. No reconnaissance- level survey is capable of detecting enough of the wildlife species that occur at a site to realistically characterize the site’s wildlife community. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR that is better informed by biological resources surveys and by appropriate interpretation of survey outcomes for the purpose of characterizing the wildlife community as part of the current environmental setting. As I noted earlier, the other first step toward characterization of the wildlife community as part of the current environmental setting is to review literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species around the site. In support of the IS/MND, GEC reviewed the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to identify species for which to determine occurrence likelihoods. Had eBird and iNaturalist also been reviewed, determinations of occurrence likelihood would have been made for many additional species (Table 2). In my assessment based on data base Number of species detectedProbability of detecting Fully Protected, Candidate, Threatened or Endangered Species0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 95% CI 152 site visits 16 reviews and my site visit, 99 special-status species of wildlife potentially use the site at one time or another. Of these, 2 (2%) were confirmed on the site by survey visits, 46 (46%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (‘Very close’), 13 (13%) within 1.5 and 3 miles (‘Nearby’), and another 35 (35%) within 3 to 50 miles (‘In region’). But whereas my review reveals 99 special-status species with potential to occur on site, the ISD/MND addresses only 41 of these. Of these 41 species, the IS/MND determines 3 (7%) to have low occurrence potential, and 38 (93%) to have no potential. Of the 38 species the IS/MND determines have no potential, 17 (45%) have been documented on eBird within 1.5 miles of the project site. The site holds much more potential for supporting special-status species of wildlife than has been determined in the IS/MND. Furthermore, the IS/MND misapplies CNDDB to screen out special-status species not reported within 1 mile of the site. Specifically, the IS/MND (p. 44) reports, “...no special-status species have been documented on the proposed project site (Rarefind 5 2021). However, fourteen special-status species (all records are from the 1800’s -early 1900’s and not on or near the project site) have been documented within one mile of the proposed project site...” Whereas CNDDB can be helpful for confirming occurrences of special-status species where they have been reported, it cannot be relied upon for determining absences of species. This is because CNDDB relies on volunteer reporting, and it is limited in its spatial coverage by the access of biologists to private properties. The findings reported to CNDDB do not originate from any sort of randomized or systematic sampling across California, nor does CNDDB collect reports of negative findings. Many survey findings are not reported to CNDDB because consulting biologists signed non-disclosure agreements with developers. Furthermore, most wildlife species in California are not reported to CNDDB, because CNDDB is uninterested in them and Scientific Collecting Permits do not require their reporting. Therefore, species recently assigned special status will be under-represented in CNDDB. In the absence of scientific sampling, absence determinations based on CNDDB reporting are vulnerable to multiple biases. The limitations of CNDDB are well-known, and summarized by CDFW in a warning presented on its CNDDB web site, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/About: “We work very hard to keep the CNDDB and the Spotted Owl Database as current and up-to-date as possible given our capabilities and resources. However, we cannot and do not portray the CNDDB as an exhaustive and comprehensive inventory of all rare species and natural communities statewide. Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species will always be an important obligation of our customers. Likewise, your contribution of data to the CNDDB is equally important to the maintenance of the CNDDB. ...” A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to more appropriately analyze data base records to characterize the current environmental setting. 17 Table 2. Reports of special-status bird species occurrences near the proposed project site, according to Gonzales Environmental Consulting (GEC) and eBird (https://eBird.org). Common name Species name Status GEC finding Database sightings Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close Western spadefoot Spea hammondii SSC None In region Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii SSC None Very close Coastal western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris stejnegeri SSC None In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra TWL None In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC Very close San Bernardino ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus modestus CNDDB None In region California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC None In region Northern red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus r. ruber SSC None Nearby Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC None Very close Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL Very close Redhead Aythya americana SSC3 Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus TWL None Very close White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi TWL Very close Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkia BCC Very close Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus BCC, TWL In region Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus BCC In region Least bittern lxobrychus exilis SSC, BCC In region California gull Larus californicus TWL Very close Caspian tern Hydropogne caspia WL In region Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close Osprey Pandion haliaetus TWL, BOP Very close Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, BCC, CFP In region Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, BCC, CFP None Nearby 18 Common name Species name Status GEC finding Database sightings Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP None Very close Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis TWL, BOP, Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus CFP, BOP Nearby Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi BOP None Very close American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close Merlin Falco columbarius BOP None Very close Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus TWL, BOP None Very close Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus CFP, BOP Very close Barn owl Tyto alba BOP Nearby Burrowing owl Bubo virginianus BCC, SSC2, BOP None Very close Great-horned owl Athene cunicularia BOP Nearby Short-eared owl Asio flammeus SSC3, BOP In region Western screech-owl Megascops kennicottii BOP Nearby Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 None Very close Black swift Cypseloides niger BCC In region Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC None Very close Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus BCC In region Horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia TWL Very close California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC None Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii CE None Very close Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC2 None Very close Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 None In region 19 Common name Species name Status GEC finding Database sightings Bank swallow Riparia riparia BLM:S Very close Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus BCC, SSC2 Low Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo belli pusillus FE, CE None Very close California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 None Very close Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 None Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Bell’s sage sparrow Amphispiza b. belli TWL None Nearby Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 Nearby Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens BCC, SSC None Nearby Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri BCC In region Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor BCC, CT None Very close Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 None Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC None Very close Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG H In region Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG H In region Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG H None In range Small-footed myotis Myotis cililabrum WBWG M In range Miller’s myotis Myotis evotis WBWG M In region Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG H In region Long-legged myotis Myotis Volans WBWG H In region Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SSC, WBWG LM Nearby Pocketed free‐tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG M None In region 20 Common name Species name Status GEC finding Database sightings Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG H In range Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC None In region Dulzura pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus femoralis SSC None Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus f. fallax SSC None In region Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC None Near range Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC None In region San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus SSC None In region Stephens’s kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FE, CT None In range San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC None In region American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Low In region 1 Listed as FT and FE = federal threatened and endangered, BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT and CE = California threatened and endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (CDFW Code 3511), BOP = California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code 3503.5 (Birds of Prey), and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WBWG = Western Bat Working Group listing as low, moderate or high priority. 21 The IS/MND mischaracterizes the current environmental setting in other ways, as well. For example, the IS/MND downplays the value of the site to wildlife because “The habitat around San Bernardino South is developed and utilized primarily for residential and commercial purposes” (p. 45). What is neglected, however, is the site’s island-like value to wildlife trying to persist on this otherwise anthropogenic landscape. The site provides one of the few remaining opportunities in the region for wildlife to find breeding substrate and opportunities to forage and stop-over during travel. Again, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the current environmental setting as a baseline upon which to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Determination of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is not, in and of itself, an analysis of potential project impacts. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demograp hic units of the species, or the whole of a species. In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, and none of which are soundly analyzed in the IS/MND. HABITAT LOSS The IS/MND does not address potential impacts of habitat loss to breeding birds. Habitat loss has been recognized as the most likely leading cause of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. For example, a complex of grassland, wetland, and woodland at one study site had a total bird nesting density of 32.8 nests per acre (Young 1948). In another study on a similar complex of vegetation cover, the average annual nest density was 35.8 nests per acre (Yahner 1982). These densities averaged 34.3 nests per acre, but they were from study sites that were much less disturbed than the project site. Assuming the nest density of the project site is only half that documented by Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), an average nest density of 34.3 multiplied against 0.5 and the project’s 3.84 acres would estimate a capacity of 66 bird nests annually. Considering the number of birds I saw on site, and assuming some of the birds remained hidden on their nests, my assumption that nest density was half that of Young (1048) and Yahner (1982) is reasonable. The loss of 66 nest sites of birds would qualify as a significant project impact that has not been addressed in the IS/MND. But the impact does not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as the site is graded in preparation for impervious surfaces. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 191 fledglings per year. After 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 21,740 birds 22 {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)}. The project’s denial to California of 217 birds per year has not been analyzed as a potential impact in the IS/MND, nor does the IS/MND provide any compensatory mitigation for this impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s impacts to wildlife caused by habitat loss and habitat fragmentation. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT The IS/MND makes false claims of analyses having been performed to determine whether the project would adversely affect wildlife movement in the region. According to the IS/MND (p. 46), “The project was evaluated in relationship to the facilitation of wildlife movement and whether it provides links to seasonal foraging grounds or affects the exchange of genetic information between disjunct subpopulations.” In fact, the IS/MND identifies no seasonal foraging grounds, nor does it provide any foundation for analysis of genetic exchange among populations. And in fact, no level of demographic organization is characterized for any species of wildlife in the area, nor is there any description of how and to where wildlife move, disperse, or migrate in the area. The “analysis” is pure speculation spun around empty scientific terms, i.e., it is pseudoscience. Multiple species of wildlife reside at the site of the proposed project. The majority of the species I saw there are breeding. The offspring of these animals will need to disperse from the site, and in years to come, recruits to the local breeding pool would need to travel to the site for the species to be able to persist there. With breeding animals on site, the site also provides forage for predatory species that nest nearby. The site is also used for stop-over by animals undergoing longer travels. As one of the last remaining patches of open space in the region, it is likely very important to wildlife movement. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife movement in the region. TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE The IS/MND 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 14-17). 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. 23 Photo 14. A Gambel’s quail dashes across a road on 3 April 2021. Such road crossings are usually successful, but too often prove fatal to the animal. Photo by Noriko Smallwood. Photo 15. Great-tailed grackle walks onto a rural road in Imperial County, 4 February 2022. Photo 16. Mourning dove killed by vehicle on a California road. Photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020. Photo 17. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County. Photo taken on 10 November 2018. 24 The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study right next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). The Brown et al. (2016) adjustment factors were similar to those for carcass persistence of road fatalities (Santos et al. 2011). Applying searcher detection rates estimated from carcass detection trials performed at a wind energy project immediately adjacent to this same stretch of road (Brown et al. 2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 12,187 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number translates to a rate of 3,900 wild animals per mile per year killed along 2.5 miles of road in 1.25 years. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 243,740 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 29 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 68 times the Canadian estimate. An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife. Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,900 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. Two percent of the estimated number of fatalities were birds, and the balance was composed of 34% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 52.3% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red - legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 11.7% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 12,187 wildlife fatalities, or 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the IS/MND’s prediction of 913,213 annual vehicle miles traveled (mitigated + unmitigated VMT) due to the project, predicts 500 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. Assuming the project-generated traffic would destroy 40% of this number due to its urbanized surroundings, a more realistic prediction would be 200 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year. Operations over 50 years would accumulate 10,000 wildlife fatalities. It remains unknown whether and to what degree vehicle tires contribute to carcass 25 removals from the roadway, thereby contributing a negative bias to the fatality estimates I made from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) fatality counts. Based on my assumptions and simple calculations, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze this impact. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The IS/MND fails to analyze potential project contributions to cumulative impacts. GEC (2021) provides some discussion of cumulative impacts, but the discussion appears to consist of canned text that has little bearing to the proposed project. For example, it says “Some habitats would only be temporarily disturbed, such as at construction staging sites that are active only during the construction phase of the project. Such temporary disturbance would either kill resident wildlife or displace them into adjacent or more distant habitats, depending on the species. Some of the surviving species would return to the disturbed site following completion of the construction activity.” In truth, none of the soils and vegetation on the site would remain, because the site would be covered by impervious surfaces. Wildlife would be unable to return to the site. GEC’s discussion is nonsensical. GEC (2021) concludes, “The site features disturbed habitat. The disturbed vegetation on the project site (site) and its history of anthropogenic disturbances limits its value to native plant and animal species.” And yet I can detect 22 species of vertebrate wildlife during a cursory survey of the site one morning, and the pattern of the data predict the site supports at least 102 species of wildlife through the course of one or more years. Wildlife communities worldwide have been disturbed by human activities, so the mere fact that the site has been disturbed cannot preclude use of the site by wildlife. Despite the disturbance of the site and despite its urban/industrial surroundings, the site is much richer in wildlife than the 10 birds of 4 species GEC reported there. GEC’s cumulative impacts discussion lacks credibility. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze cumulative effects. MITIGATION MEASURES MM BIO-1 Preconstruction survey for migratory birds Preconstruction surveys should be performed for nesting birds, but not as a substitute for detection surveys. Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most bird species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of their nests will not be detected by preconstruction 26 surveys. Many of the nests at the project site are located in dense vegetation, such as within the densely layered fronds of palm trees. Locating all of the nests on site would require more effort than is committed during preconstruction surveys. Detection surveys are needed to inform preconstruction take-avoidance surveys by mapping out where biologists performing preconstruction surveys are most likely to find animals before the tractor blade finds them. Detection surveys were designed by species experts, often undergoing considerable deliberation and review before adoption. Detection surveys often require repeated efforts using methods known to maximize likelihoods of detection. Detection surveys are needed to assess impacts and to inform the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures, because preconstruction surveys are not intended for these roles either. What is missing from the IS/MND, and what is in greater need than preconstruction surveys, is detection surveys consistent with guidelines and protocols that wildlife ecologists have uniquely developed for use with each special-status species. What is also missing is compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts. Following detection surveys, preconstruction surveys should be performed. However, an EIR should be prepared, and it should detail how the results of preconstruction surveys would be reported. Without reporting the results, preconstruction surveys are vulnerable to serving as an empty gesture rather than a mitigation measure. For these reasons, this mitigation measure is not sufficient to reduce the project’s impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels. MM BIO-2 Preconstruction survey for burrowing owls Again, I concur that a preconstruction survey would be warranted, but only after completion of detection surveys that meet the standards of CDFW (2012). MM BIO-3 Avoid planting of priority exotics MM BIO-4 Maintenance and refueling only in designated safe zone MM BIO-5 Prevent runoff The above measures, BIO-3 to BIO-5, are best practices with which I concur should be implemented, but which would do little to nothing to mitigate impacts to wildlife. They might help to minimize impacts to wildlife off site, but they would not avoid nor compensate for impacts to wildlife on site. RECOMMENDED MEASURES The IS/MND proposes only preconstruction surveys and a few best management practices, but no compensatory mitigation for habitat loss or losses to project-generated traffic. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to formulate 27 appropriate measures to mitigate project impacts to wildlife. Below are few suggestions of measures that ought to be considered in an EIR. Detection Surveys: Protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented for special-status species, and most especially for burrowing owl. Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. An equal area of open space should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible. Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by the 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). Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with automobiles. Thank you for your attention, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Sacramento, California. 28 City of San Bernardino. 2022. Amazing 34 Distribution Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by Adkan Engineers. San Bernardino, California. Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California. GEC (Gonzales Environmental Consulting). 2021. General biological resource assessment and habitat assessment for APN 260-021- 34, 260-021-44 And 260-021- 47 (Amazing 34) Project. 358 Crystal Drive, San Jacinto, CA 92583 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. Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys. PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175. Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47. 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California. Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two. Cell (530) 601-6857 puma@dcn.org Ecologist Expertise • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities; • Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions. Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience  761 professional reports, including:  90 peer reviewed publications  24 in non-reviewed proceedings  645 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews  8 in mass media outlets  92 public presentations of research results Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV 2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation. Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines. Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001. Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding. Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS. Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape. Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues. Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California. Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV 3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration. Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis. Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E. Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Projects Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue. Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built. Planning for additional repowering projects is underway. Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. Smallwood CV 4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions. Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports. Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review. Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below). Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species. Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population. Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV. Smallwood CV 5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management. Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits. GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County. Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams. Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc. Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. Smallwood CV 6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats. Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language. Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards. Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California. Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards. Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: In press. Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540. Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863. Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities. Smallwood CV 7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084. Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 – 71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018. Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18. Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Smallwood CV 8 Mete, A., N. Stephenson, K. Rogers, M. G. Hawkins, M. Sadar, D. Guzman, D. A. Bell, J. Shipman, A. Wells, K. S. Smallwood, and J. Foley. 2014. Emergence of Knemidocoptic mange in wild Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in California. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(10):1716- 1718. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Introduction: Wind-energy development and wildlife conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37: 3-4. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Comparing bird and bat fatality-rate estimates among North American wind-energy projects. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:19-33. + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, J. Mount, and R. C. E. Culver. 2013. Nesting Burrowing Owl Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 37:787-795. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, B. Karas, and S. A. Snyder. 2013. Response to Huso and Erickson Comments on Novel Scavenger Removal Trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 216-225. Bell, D. A., and K. S. Smallwood. 2010. Birds of prey remain at risk. Science 330:913. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, S. A. Snyder, and J. E. DiDonato. 2010. Novel scavenger removal trials increase estimates of wind turbine-caused avian fatality rates. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1089-1097 + Online Supplemental Material. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2009. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind resource area to minimize burrowing owl and other bird fatalities. Energies 2009(2):915- 943. http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/915 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2009. Impacts of West Nile Virus Epizootic on Yellow-Billed Magpie, American Crow, and other Birds in the Sacramento Valley, California. The Condor 111:247-254. Smallwood, K. S., L. Rugge, and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Influence of Behavior on Bird Mortality in Wind Energy Developments: The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1082-1098. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2009. Avian and Bat Fatality Rates at Old-Generation and Repowered 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 CV 9 Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander, M. L. Morrison, and L. M. Rugge. 2007. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1513- 1524. Cain, J. W. III, K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2005. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of Passerines. J. Wildlife Management 70:522-531. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and L. S. Hall. 2002. Creating habitat through plant relocation: Lessons from Valley elderberry longhorn beetle mitigation. Ecological Restoration 21: 95-100. Zhang, M., K. S. Smallwood, and E. Anderson. 2002. Relating indicators of ecological health and integrity to assess risks to sustainable agriculture and native biota. Pages 757-768 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Wilcox, B. A., K. S. Smallwood, and J. A. Kahn. 2002. Toward a forest Capital Index. Pages 285- 298 in D.J. Rapport, W.L. Lasley, D.E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A.B. Damania (eds.), Managing for Healthy Ecosystems, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida USA. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. The allometry of density within the space used by populations of Mammalian Carnivores. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1634-1640. Smallwood, K.S., and T.R. Smith. 2001. Study design and interpretation of Sorex density estimates. Annales Zoologi Fennici 38:141-161. Smallwood, K.S., A. Gonzales, T. Smith, E. West, C. Hawkins, E. Stitt, C. Keckler, C. Bailey, and K. Brown. 2001. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:40-49. Geng, S., Yixing Zhou, Minghua Zhang, and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2001. A Sustainable Agro- ecological Solution to Water Shortage in North China Plain (Huabei Plain). Environmental Planning and Management 44:345-355. Smallwood, K. Shawn, Lourdes Rugge, Stacia Hoover, Michael L. Morrison, Carl Thelander. 2001. Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. Pages 23-37 in S. S. Schwartz, ed., Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV. RESOLVE, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, 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. Smallwood CV 10 Restoration Ecology 9:253-261. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1:23-35. Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea and M. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24:421-435. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Scale domains of abundance among species of Mammalian Carnivora. Environmental Conservation 26:102-111. Smallwood, K.S. 1999. Suggested study attributes for making useful population density estimates. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 35: 76-82. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Estimating burrow volume and excavation rate of pocket gophers (Geomyidae). Southwestern Naturalist 44:173-183. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1999. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Naturalist 44:73-82. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Abating pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) to regenerate forests in clearcuts. Environmental Conservation 26:59-65. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. Patterns of black bear abundance. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34:32-38. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing northern goshawks (Accipter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. J. Raptor Research 32:323-329. Smallwood, K. S., B. Wilcox, R. Leidy, and K. Yarris. 1998. Indicators assessment for Habitat Conservation Plan of Yolo County, California, USA. Environmental Management 22: 947-958. Smallwood, K. S., M. L. Morrison, and J. Beyea. 1998. Animal burrowing attributes affecting hazardous waste management. Environmental Management 22: 831-847. Smallwood, K. S, and C. M. Schonewald. 1998. Study design and interpretation for mammalian carnivore density estimates. Oecologia 113:474-491. Zhang, M., S. Geng, and K. S. Smallwood. 1998. Nitrate contamination in groundwater of Tulare County, California. Ambio 27(3):170-174. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 1997. Animal burrowing in the waste management zone of Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Proceedings of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society Meeting 33:88-97. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and J. Beyea. 1997. Monitoring the dispersal of contaminants by wildlife at nuclear weapons production and waste storage facilities. The Environmentalist 17:289-295. Smallwood CV 11 Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Interpreting puma (Puma concolor) density estimates for theory and management. Environmental Conservation 24(3):283-289. Smallwood, K. S. 1997. Managing vertebrates in cover crops: a first study. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11:155-160. Smallwood, K. S. and S. Geng. 1997. Multi-scale influences of gophers on alfalfa yield and quality. Field Crops Research 49:159-168. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Schonewald. 1996. Scaling population density and spatial pattern for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 105:329-335. Smallwood, K. S., G. Jones, and C. Schonewald. 1996. Spatial scaling of allometry for terrestrial, mammalian carnivores. Oecologia 107:588-594. Van Vuren, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 1996. Ecological management of vertebrate pests in agricultural systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:41-64. Smallwood, K. S., B. J. Nakamoto, and S. Geng. 1996. Association analysis of raptors on an agricultural landscape. Pages 177-190 in D.M. Bird, D.E. Varland, and J.J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Erichsen, A. L., K. S. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, D. M. Fry, and B. Wilson. 1996. White- tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. Pages 166-176 in D. M. Bird, D. E. Varland, and J. J. Negro, eds., Raptors in human landscapes. Academic Press, London. Smallwood, K. S. 1995. Scaling Swainson's hawk population density for assessing habitat-use across an agricultural landscape. J. Raptor Research 29:172-178. Smallwood, K. S. and W. A. Erickson. 1995. Estimating gopher populations and their abatement in forest plantations. Forest Science 41:284-296. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion Felis concolor californica population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259 Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Site invasibility by exotic birds and mammals. Biological Conservation 69:251-259. Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwestern Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Understanding ecological pattern and process by association and order. Acta Oecologica 14(3):443-462. Smallwood, K. S. and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1993. A rigorous technique for identifying individual mountain lions Felis concolor by their tracks. Biological Conservation 65:51-59. Smallwood CV 12 Smallwood, K. S. 1993. Mountain lion vocalizations and hunting behavior. The Southwestern Naturalist 38:65-67. Smallwood, K. S. and T. P. Salmon. 1992. A rating system for potential exotic vertebrate pests. Biological Conservation 62:149-159. Smallwood, K. S. 1990. Turbulence and the ecology of invading species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Davis. Peer-reviewed Reports Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2017. Comparing bird and bat use data for siting new wind power generation. Report CEC-500-2017-019, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019.pdf and http://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC- 500-2017-019/CEC-500-2017-019-APA-F.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Bird and bat impacts and behaviors at old wind turbines at Forebay, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report CEC-500-2016-066, California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research program, Sacramento, California. http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php? pubNum=CEC-500- 2016-066 Sinclair, K. and E. DeGeorge. 2016. Framework for Testing the Effectiveness of Bat and Eagle Impact-Reduction Strategies at Wind Energy Projects. S. Smallwood, M. Schirmacher, and M. Morrison, eds., Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-65624, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2014. Final 2013-2014 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, and B. Karas. 2013. Final 2012-2013 Annual Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p274_ventus_vasco_winds_2012_13_avian_ bat_monitoring_report_year_1.pdf Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, D. Bell, J. DiDonato, B. Karas, S. Snyder, and S. Lopez. 2009. Range Management Practices to Reduce Wind Turbine Impacts on Burrowing Owls and Other Raptors in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2008-080. Sacramento, California. 183 pp. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/range-management-practices-reduce-wind-turbine- Smallwood CV 13 impacts-burrowing-owls-other-raptors Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2009. Map-Based Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Based on Burrowing Owl Burrows, Raptor Flights, and Collisions with Wind Turbines. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. CEC-500-2009-065. Sacramento, California. http:// www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=CEC-500-2009-065 Smallwood, K. S., K. Hunting, L. Neher, L. Spiegel and M. Yee. 2007. Indicating Threats to Birds Posed by New Wind Power Projects in California. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. Submitted but not published. Sacramento, California. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2005. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, March 1998 – September 2001 Final Report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-36973. Golden, Colorado. 410 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2004. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Final Report to the California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research – Environmental Area, Contract No. 500-01-019. Sacramento, California. 531 pp. http://www.altamontsrcarchive.org/alt_doc/cec_final_report_08_11_04.pdf Thelander, C.G. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/SR-500-33829. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 86 pp. Thelander, C.G., S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2001. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Wind Resource Area – a progress report. Proceedings of the American Wind Energy Association, Washington D.C. 16 pp. Non-Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Methods manual for assessing wind farm impacts to birds. Bird Conservation Series 26, Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. T. Ura, ed., in English with Japanese translation by T. Kurosawa. 90 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mitigation in U.S. Wind Farms. Pages 68-76 in H. Hötker (Ed.), Birds of Prey and Wind Farms: Analysis of problems and possible solutions. Documentation of an International Workshop in Berlin, 21st and 22nd October 2008. Michael-Otto-Instiut im NABU, Goosstroot 1, 24861 Bergenhusen, Germany. http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/forschung/greifvoegel/ Smallwood, K. S. 2007. Notes and recommendations on wildlife impacts caused by Japan’s wind power development. Pages 242-245 in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. Thelander, C.G. and S. Smallwood. 2007. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area's Effects on Birds: A Case History. Pages 25-46 in Manuela de Lucas, Guyonne F.E. Janss, Miguel Ferrer Smallwood CV 14 Editors, Birds and Wind Farms: risk assessment and mitigation. Madrid: Quercus. Neher, L. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality in siting wind turbines. Energy Currents. Fall Issue. ESRI, Inc., Redlands, California. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Laying plans for a hydrogen highway. Comstock’s Business, August 2004:18-20, 22, 24-26. Jennifer Davidson and Shawn Smallwood. 2004. Refined conundrum: California consumers demand more oil while opposing refinery development. Comstock’s Business, November 2004:26-27, 29-30. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Atlas of Endangered Species.” By Richard Mackay. Environmental Conservation 30:210-211. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Review of “The Endangered Species Act. History, Conservation, and Public Policy.” By Brian Czech and Paul B. Krausman. Environmental Conservation 29: 269- 270. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Abstract in Proceedings of 44th Annual Meeting, Southwestern Association of Naturalists. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Animal burrowing parameters influencing toxic waste management. Abstract in Proceedings of Meeting, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Abstract, page 93 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and Bruce Wilcox. 1996. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed. Abstract, page 94 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S, and M. Grigione. 1997. Photographic recording of mountain lion tracks. Pages 75-75 in D.W. Padley, ed., Proceedings 5th Mountain Lion Workshop, Southern California Chapter, The Wildlife Society. 135 pp. Smallwood, K.S., B. Wilcox, and J. Karr. 1995. An approach to scaling fragmentation effects. Brief 8, Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129-0075. Wilcox, B., and K.S. Smallwood. 1995. Ecosystem indicators model overview. Brief 2, Smallwood CV 15 Ecosystem Indicators Working Group, 17 March, 1995. Institute for Sustainable Development, Thoreau Center for Sustainability – The Presidio, PO Box 29075, San Francisco, CA 94129- 0075. EIP Associates. 1996. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Geng, S., K.S. Smallwood, and M. Zhang. 1995. Sustainable agriculture and agricultural sustainability. Proc. 7th International Congress SABRAO, 2nd Industrial Symp. WSAA. Taipei, Taiwan. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1994. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Pages 454-464 in W. Dehai, ed., Proc. International Conference on Integrated Resource Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, China. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:105-8. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium 23:86-89. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1992. The use of track counts for mountain lion population census. Pages 59-67 in C. Braun, ed. Mountain lion-Human Interaction Symposium and Workshop. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Pages 58-63 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Techniques for monitoring mountain lion population levels. Pages 69-71 in Smith, R.H., ed. Proc. Third Mountain Lion Workshop. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. Reports to or by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (Note: all documents linked to SRC website have since been removed by Alameda County) Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Data Needed in Support of Repowering in the Altamont Pass WRA. SRC document P284, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Long-Term Trends in Fatality Rates of Birds and Bats in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document R68, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Inter-annual Fatality rates of Target Raptor Species from 1999 through 2012 in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. SRC document P268, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. General Protocol for Performing Detection Trials in the FloDesign Study Smallwood CV 16 of the Safety of a Closed-bladed Wind Turbine. SRC document P246, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., l. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Burrowing owl distribution and abundance study through two breeding seasons and intervening non-breeding period in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P245, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S 2012. Draft study design for testing collision risk of Flodesign wind turbine in former AES Seawest wind projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). SRC document P238, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2012. Winter 2012 update on burrowing owl distribution and abundance study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P232, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2012. Status of avian utilization data collected in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 2005-2011. SRC document P231, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Monitoring Burrow Use of Wintering Burrowing Owls. SRC document P229, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and J. Mount. 2011. Nesting Burrowing Owl Distribution and Abundance in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC document P228, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft Study Design for Testing Collision Risk of Flodesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass Wind Farm in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). http://www.altamontsrc.org/alt_doc/p100_src_document_list_with_reference_numbers.pdf Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Sampling Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P205, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Proposal to Sample Burrowing Owls Across the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P198, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on APWRA Monitoring Program Update. SRC document P191, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Inter-turbine Comparisons of Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P189, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of the December 2010 Draft of M-21: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Collision Study. SRC document P190, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Shawn Smallwood, Jim Estep, Sue Orloff, Joanna Burger, and Julie Yee). Comments on the Notice of Preparation for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Smallwood CV 17 Revised CUPs for Wind Turbines in the Alameda County portion of the Altamont Pass. SRC document P183, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of Monitoring Implementation Plan. SRC document P180, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Burger, J., J. Estep, S. Orloff, S. Smallwood, and J. Yee. 2010. SRC Comments on CalWEA Research Plan. SRC document P174, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). SRC Comments on Monitoring Team’s Draft Study Plan for Future Monitoring. SRC document P168, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Second Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P171, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Assessment of Three Proposed Adaptive Management Plans for Reducing Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P161, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and J. Estep. 2010. Report of additional wind turbine hazard ratings in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area by Two Members of the Alameda County Scientific Review Committee. SRC document P153, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Alternatives to Improve the Efficiency of the Monitoring Program. SRC document P158, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Summary of Alameda County SRC Recommendations and Concerns and Subsequent Actions. SRC document P147, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. SRC document P148, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, S. 2010. Old-generation wind turbines rated for raptor collision hazard by Alameda County Scientific Review Committee in 2010, an Update on those Rated in 2007, and an Update on Tier Rankings. SRC document P155, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Review of American Kestrel-Burrowing owl (KB) Scavenger Removal Adjustments Reported in Alameda County Avian Monitoring Team’s M21 for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P154, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Fatality Rates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area 1998-2009. Alameda County SRC document P-145. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Comments on Revised M-21: Report on Fatality Monitoring in the Smallwood CV 18 Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P144, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. SRC document P129, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Smallwood’s review of M32. SRC document P111, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. 3rd Year Review of 16 Conditional Use Permits for Windworks, Inc. and Altamont Infrastructure Company, LLC. Comment letter to East County Board of Zoning Adjustments. 10 pp + 2 attachments. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Weighing Remaining Workload of Alameda County SRC against Proposed Budget Cap. Alameda County SRC document not assigned. 3 pp. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2008. SRC comments on August 2008 Fatality Monitoring Report, M21. SRC document P107, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Burrowing owl carcass distribution around wind turbines. SRC document P106, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Assessment of relocation/removal of Altamont Pass wind turbines rated as hazardous by the Alameda County SRC. SRC document P103, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2008. Summary of wind turbine-free ridgelines within and around the APWRA. SRC document P102, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. and B. Karas. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area when restricted to recent fatalities. SRC document P101, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. On the misapplication of mortality adjustment terms to fatalities missed during one search and found later. SRC document P97, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Relative abundance of raptors outside the APWRA. SRC document P88, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Comparison of mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P76, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). 2010. Guidelines for siting wind turbines recommended for relocation to minimize potential collision- related mortality of four focal raptor species in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. SRC document P70, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Smallwood CV 19 Alameda County SRC (J. Burger, Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Yee). 2007. First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale First DRAFT of Hazardous Rating Scale. SRC document P69, County of Alameda, Hayward, California. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 11, 2007. SRC selection of dangerous wind turbines. Alameda County SRC document P-67. 8 pp. Smallwood, S. October 6, 2007. Smallwood’s answers to Audubon’s queries about the SRC’s recommended four-month winter shutdown of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass. Alameda County SRC document P-23. Smallwood, K. S. October 1, 2007. Dissenting opinion on recommendation to approve of the AWI Blade Painting Study. Alameda County SRC document P-60. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Effects of monitoring duration and inter-annual variability on precision of wind-turbine caused mortality estimates in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. SRC Document P44. Smallwood, K. S. July 26, 2007. Memo: Opinion of some SRC members that the period over which post-management mortality will be estimated remains undefined. SRC Document P43. Smallwood, K. S. July 19, 2007. Smallwood’s response to P24G. SRC Document P41, 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. April 23, 2007. New Information Regarding Alameda County SRC Decision of 11 April 2007 to Grant FPLE Credits for Removing and Relocating Wind Turbines in 2004. SRC Document P26. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, and J. Burger [J. Yee abstained]). April 17, 2007. SRC Statement in Support of the Monitoring Program Scope and Budget. Smallwood, K. S. April 15, 2007. Verification of Tier 1 & 2 Wind Turbine Shutdowns and Relocations. SRC Document P22. Smallwood, S. April 15, 2007. Progress of Avian Wildlife Protection Program & Schedule. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). April 3, 2007. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee replies to the parties’ responses to its queries and to comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S20. Smallwood, S. March 19, 2007. Estimated Effects of Full Winter Shutdown and Removal of Tier I & II Turbines. SRC Document S19. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Replies to the Parties’ Responses to Queries from the SRC and Comments from the California Office of the Attorney General. SRC Document S16. Smallwood, S. March 8, 2007. Estimated Effects of Proposed Measures to be Applied to 2,500 Wind Turbines in the APWRA Fatality Monitoring Plan. SRC Document S15. Smallwood CV 20 Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). February 7, 2007. Analysis of Monitoring Program in Context of 1/1//2007 Settlement Agreement. Smallwood, S. January 8, 2007. Smallwood’s Concerns over the Agreement to Settle the CEQA Challenges. SRC Document S5. Alameda County SRC (Smallwood, K. S., S. Orloff, J. Estep, J. Burger, and J. Yee). December 19, 2006. Altamont Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Recommendations to the County on the Avian Monitoring Team Consultants’ Budget and Organization. Reports to Clients Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Assessment of wildlife collision risk with initial wind turbine layout of Viracocha Wind Farm. Report to Viracocha Wind LLC and Salka LLC. Smallwood, K. S. 2020. Comparison of bird and bat fatality rates among utility-scale solar projects in California. Report to undisclosed client. Smallwood, K. S., D. Bell, and S. Standish. 2018. Skilled dog detections of bat and small bird carcasses in wind turbine fatality monitoring. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2018. Addendum to Comparison of Wind Turbine Collision Hazard Model Performance: One-year Post-construction Assessment of Golden Eagle Fatalities at Golden Hills. Report to Audubon Society, NextEra Energy, and the California Attorney General. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Rooney Ranch Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to S-Power, Salt Lake City, Utah. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Summary of a burrowing owl conservation workshop. Report to Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Morgan Hill, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2018. Comparison of wind turbine collision hazard model performance prepared for repowering projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Summit Winds Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Salka, Inc., Washington, D.C. Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Mitigating golden eagle impacts from Smallwood CV 21 repowering Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area and expanding Los Vaqueros Reservoir. Report to East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Conservancy and Contra Costa Water District. Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Review of avian-solar science plan. Report to Center for Biological Diversity. 28 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2016. Report of Altamont Pass research as Vasco Winds mitigation. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Inc., Office of the California Attorney General, Audubon Society, East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2016. Siting Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor collisions at Sand Hill Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to Ogin, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015a. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015b. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Golden Hills North Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2015c. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Patterson Pass Repowering Project, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2014. Early assessment of wind turbine layout in Summit Wind Project. Report to Altamont Winds LLC, Tracy, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Review of avian use survey report for the Longboat Solar Project. Report to EDF Renewable Energy, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Information needed for solar project impacts assessment and mitigation planning. Report to Panorama Environmental, Inc., San Francisco, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2014. Monitoring fossorial mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the period 2006-2014. Report to East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. First-year estimates of bird and bat fatality rates at old wind turbines, Forebay areas of Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Report to FloDesign in support of EIR. Smallwood, K. S. and W. Pearson. 2013. Neotropical bird monitoring of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), Naval Air Station Lemoore, California. Tierra Data, Inc. report to Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. 2013. Winter surveys for San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) and Smallwood CV 22 burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) within Air Operations at Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. and Naval Air Station Lemoore. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2013. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) conservation research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2012 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2012). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2012. Fatality rate estimates at the Vantage Wind Energy Project, year one. Report to Ventus Environmental, Portland, Oregon. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2012. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at North Sky River. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: Report of Progress for the Period 2006-2011. Report to East Bay Regional Park District. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2011 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2011). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Draft study design for testing collision risk of FloDesign Wind Turbine in Patterson Pass, Santa Clara, and Former AES Seawest Wind Projects in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Report to FloDesign, Inc. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Comments on Marbled Murrelet collision model for the Radar Ridge Wind Resource Area. Report to EcoStat, Inc., and ultimately to US Fish and Wildlife Service. Smallwood, K. S. 2011. Avian fatality rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2011. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2011. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Tres Vaqueros, Contra Costa County, California. Report to Pattern Energy. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2011. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2010 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2010). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Wind Energy Development and avian issues in the Altamont Pass, California. Report to Black & Veatch. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood CV 23 Smallwood, K. S. and L. Neher. 2010. Siting repowered wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions at Vasco Winds. Report to NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, Livermore, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2010. Baseline avian and bat fatality rates at the Tres Vaqueros Wind Project, Contra Costa County, California. Report to the East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, California. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2010. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2009 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2009). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 86 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammal surveys at naval outlying landing field Imperial Beach, California, August 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 5 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Mammals and other Wildlife Observed at Proposed Site of Amargosa Solar Power Project, Spring 2009. Report to Tierra Data, Inc. 13 pp Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Avian Fatality Rates at Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, 2008-2009. Report to members of the Contra Costa County Technical Advisory Committee on the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Repowering the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area more than Doubles Energy Generation While Substantially Reducing Bird Fatalities. Report prepared on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 2 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2009. Surveys to Detect Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and California Black Rail at Installation Restoration Site 30, Military Ocean Terminal Concord, California: March-April 2009. Report to Insight Environmental, Engineering, and Construction, Inc., Sacramento, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2008. Avian and Bat Mortality at the Big Horn Wind Energy Project, Klickitat County, Washington. Unpublished report to Friends of Skamania County. 7 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2009. Monitoring Fossorial Mammals in Vasco Caves Regional Preserve, California: report of progress for the period 2006-2008. Unpublished report to East Bay Regional Park District. 5 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2008 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2000-2008). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 84 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Habitat Assessment for California Red-Legged Frog at Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 48 pp. Smallwood CV 24 Smallwood, K. S. and B. Nakamoto. 2008. Impact of 2005 and 2006 West Nile Virus on Yellow- billed Magpie and American Crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. 22 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project (IR Site #2), San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-Vegetation Monitoring. Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-04LT-A0045. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. Burrowing owls at Dixon Naval Radio Transmitter Facility. Report to U.S. Navy. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 28 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2008. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2007 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2007). Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Desert Integrated Products Team, San Diego, California. 69 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. A Monitoring Effort to Detect the Presence of the Federally Listed Species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and Wetland Habitat Assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30, Final Report to U.S. Navy, Letter Agreement – N68711-05LT-A0001. U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2007. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2006 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2006). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, Daly City, California. 165 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and C. Thelander. 2006. Response to third review of Smallwood and Thelander (2004). Report to California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California, Oakland, CA. 139 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Biological effects of repowering a portion of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California: The Diablo Winds Energy Project. Report to Altamont Working Group. Available from Shawn Smallwood, puma@yolo.com . 34 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2006. Impact of 2005 West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpie and american crow in the Sacramento Valley, California. Report to Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, Elk Grove, CA. 38 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys n. nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resource Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station: 2005 Progress Report (Inclusive of work during 2001-2005). U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 160 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the Smallwood CV 25 federally listed species California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter agreements N68711- 04LT-A0042 and N68711-04LT-A0044, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 60 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Sampling for rails, Spring 2006, Installation Restoration (IR) Site 1. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT), West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, South West, Daly City, California. 9 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2006. Final Report: Station-wide Wildlife Survey, Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 20 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Former Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA), Skaggs Island, Waste and Contaminated Soil Removal Project, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California: Re-vegetation Monitoring. Department of the Navy Integrated Product Team (IPT) West, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 2001 Junipero Serra Blvd., Suite 600, Daly City, CA 94014-1976. 8 pp. Dorin, Melinda, Linda Spiegel and K. Shawn Smallwood. 2005. Response to public comments on the staff report entitled Assessment of Avian Mortality from Collisions and Electrocutions (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report. California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 205 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2005. Estimating combined effects of selective turbine removal and winter-time shutdown of half the wind turbines. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 23. 1 p. Erickson, W. and S. Smallwood. 2005. Avian and Bat Monitoring Plan for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project Contra Costa County, California. Unpubl. report to Contra Costa County, Antioch, California. 22 pp. Lamphier-Gregory, West Inc., Shawn Smallwood, Jones & Stokes Associates, Illingworth & Rodkin Inc. and Environmental Vision. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the Buena Vista Wind Energy Project, LP# 022005. County of Contra Costa Community Development Department, Martinez, California. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Targeted Sampling for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Fall 2005 Installation Restoration (IR) Site 30. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Smallwood CV 26 Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse, and wetland habitat assessment at the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement – N68711-05lt-A0001, U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 5 pp. Morrison, M. L. and K. S. Smallwood. 2005. Skaggs Island waste and contaminated soil removal projects, San Pablo Bay, Sonoma County, California. Report to the U.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, Daly City, California. 6 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2004. 2004 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research in Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 134 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005a. Assessment to support an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 19 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005b. Partial re-assessment of an adaptive management plan for the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, March 25. 48 pp. Smallwood, K. S. and L. Spiegel. 2005c. Combining biology-based and policy-based tiers of priority for determining wind turbine relocation/shutdown to reduce bird fatalities in the APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, June 1. 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2004. Alternative plan to implement mitigation measures in APWRA. Unpublished CEC staff report, January 19. 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and L. Neher. 2005. Repowering the APWRA: Forecasting and minimizing avian mortality without significant loss of power generation. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-005. 21 pp. [Reprinted (in Japanese) in Yukihiro Kominami, Tatsuya Ura, Koshitawa, and Tsuchiya, Editors, Wildlife and Wind Turbine Report 5. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo.] Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 4 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2004. A monitoring effort to detect the presence of the federally listed species California clapper rails and wetland habitat assessment at Pier 4 of the Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord, California. Letter Agreement N68711-04LT-A0002. 8 pp. + 2 pp. of photo plates. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2003 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 56 pp. + 58 figures. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Comparison of Biological Impacts of the No Project and Partial Smallwood CV 27 Underground Alternatives presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Jefferson- Martin 230 kV Transmission Line. Report to California Public Utilities Commission. 20 pp. Morrison, M. L., and K. S. Smallwood. 2003. Kangaroo rat survey at RMA4, NAS Lemoore. Report to U.S. Navy. 6 pp. + 7 photos + 1 map. Smallwood, K. S. 2003. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the Tesla Power Project. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 32 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2003. 2002 Progress Report: San Joaquin kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 45 pp. + 36 figures. Smallwood, K. S., Michael L. Morrison and Carl G. Thelander 2002. Study plan to test the effectiveness of aerial markers at reducing avian mortality due to collisions with transmission lines: A report to Pacific Gas & Electric Company. 10 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2002. Assessment of the Environmental Review Documents Prepared for the East Altamont Energy Center. Report to the California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy. 26 pp. Thelander, Carl G., K. Shawn Smallwood, and Christopher Costello. 2002 Rating Distribution Poles for Threat of Raptor Electrocution and Priority Retrofit: Developing a Predictive Model. Report to Southern California Edison Company. 30 pp. Smallwood, K. S., M. Robison, and C. Thelander. 2002. Draft Natural Environment Study, Prunedale Highway 101 Project. California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo, California. 120 pp. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Assessment of ecological integrity and restoration potential of Beeman/Pelican Farm. Draft Report to Howard Beeman, Woodland, California. 14 pp. Smallwood, K. S., and M. L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. Progress report to U.S. Department of the Navy, Lemoore, California. 29 pp. + 19 figures. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Rocky Flats visit, April 4th through 6th, 2001. Report to Berger & Montaque, P.C. 16 pp. with 61 color plates. Smallwood, K.S. 2001. Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. in the matter of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s rejection of Seatuck Environmental Association’s proposal to operate an education center on Seatuck National Wildlife Refuge. Submitted to Seatuck Environmental Association in two parts, totaling 7 pp. Magney, D., and K.S. Smallwood. 2001. Maranatha High School CEQA critique. Comment letter submitted to Tamara & Efren Compeán, 16 pp. Smallwood CV 28 Smallwood, K. S. and D. Mangey. 2001. Comments on the Newhall Ranch November 2000 Administrative Draft EIR. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 68 pp. Magney, D. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Newhall Ranch Notice of Preparation Submittal. Prepared for Ventura County Counsel regarding our recommended scope of work for the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan EIR. 17 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Contra Costa Power Plant Unit 8 Project. Submitted to California Energy Commission on November 30 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 4 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the California Energy Commission’s Final Staff Assessment of the MEC. Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 8 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP). Submitted to California Energy Commission on October 29 on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 9 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment of the Metcalf Energy Center. Submitted to California Energy Commission on behalf of Californians for Renewable Energy (CaRE). 11 pp. Smallwood, K. S. 2000. Preliminary report of reconnaissance surveys near the TRW plant south of Phoenix, Arizona, March 27-29. Report prepared for Hagens, Berman & Mitchell, Attorneys at Law, Phoenix, AZ. 6 pp. Morrison, M. L., K. S. Smallwood, and M. Robison. 2001. Draft Natural Environment Study for Highway 46 compliance with CEQA/NEPA. Report to the California Department of Transportation. 75 pp. Morrison, M.L., and K.S. Smallwood. 1999. NTI plan evaluation and comments. Exhibit C in W.D. Carrier, M.L. Morrison, K.S. Smallwood, and Vail Engineering. Recommendations for NBHCP land acquisition and enhancement strategies. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K. S. 1999. Estimation of impacts due to dredging of a shipping channel through Humboldt Bay, California. Court Declaration prepared on behalf of EPIC. Smallwood, K. S. 1998. 1998 California mountain lion track count. Report to the Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C. 5 pages. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Draft report of a visit to a paint sludge dump site near Ridgewood, New Jersey, February 26th, 1998. Unpublished report to Consulting in the Public Interest. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Science missing in the “no surprises” policy. Commissioned by National Endangered Species Network and Spirit of the Sage Council, Pasadena, California. Smallwood CV 29 Smallwood, K.S. and M.L. Morrison. 1997. Alternate mitigation strategy for incidental take of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk as part of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Pages 6-9 and iii illustrations in W.D. Carrier, K.S. Smallwood and M.L. Morrison, Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan: Narrow channel marsh alternative wetland mitigation. Northern Territories, Inc., Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. (peer reviewed). Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Assessment of plutonium releases from Hanford buried waste sites. Report Number 9, Consulting in the Public Interest, 53 Clinton Street, Lambertville, New Jersey, 08530. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Soil Bioturbation and Wind Affect Fate of Hazardous Materials that were Released at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S. 1996. Second assessment of the BIOPORT model's parameter values for pocket gopher burrowing characteristics and other relevant wildlife observations. Report to Berger & Montague, P.C. and Roy S. Haber, P.C., Philadelphia. Smallwood, K.S., and R. Leidy. 1996. Wildlife and their management under the Martell SYP. Report to Georgia Pacific, Corporation, Martel, CA. 30 pp. EIP Associates. 1995. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Resources Report. Yolo County Planning and Development Department, Woodland, California. Smallwood, K.S. and S. Geng. 1995. Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Program on Workable Energy Regulation, University-wide Energy Research Group, University of California. Smallwood, K.S., S. Geng, and W. Idzerda. 1992. Final report to PG&E: Analysis of the 1987 California Farm Cost Survey and recommendations for future survey. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Ramon, California. 24 pp. Fitzhugh, E.L. and K.S. Smallwood. 1987. Methods Manual – A statewide mountain lion population index technique. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Salmon, T.P. and K.S. Smallwood. 1989. Final Report – Evaluating exotic vertebrates as pests to California agriculture. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento. Smallwood, K.S. and W. A. Erickson (written under supervision of W.E. Howard, R.E. Marsh, and R.J. Laacke). 1990. Environmental exposure and fate of multi-kill strychnine gopher baits. Final Report to USDA Forest Service –NAPIAP, Cooperative Agreement PSW-89-0010CA. Fitzhugh, E.L., K.S. Smallwood, and R. Gross. 1985. Mountain lion track count, Marin County, 1985. Report on file at Wildlife Extension, University of California, Davis. Smallwood CV 30 Comments on Environmental Documents (Year; pages) I was retained or commissioned to comment on environmental planning and review documents, including:  Shirk & Riggin Industrial Park Application, Visalia (2022; 22);  Duarte Industrial Application, Visalia (2022; 17);  Amond World Cold Storage Warehouse IS/MND, Madera (2022; 23);  Replies on Schulte Logistics Centre EIR, Tracy (2022; 28);  Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project Recirculated IS/MND, Ranch Cucamonga (2022; 8);  Fourth visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2022; 9);  Replies on 1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project FEIR, Santa Monica (2022; 5);  656 South San Vicente Medical Office Project EIR, Los Angeles (2022; 21);  UCSF New Hospital at Parnassus Heights DEIR. San Francisco (2022; 40);  DPR-21-021Warehouse IS, Modesto (2022; 19);  Ormat Brawley Solar Project DEIR, Brawley (2022; 37);  Site visits to Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2022; 31);  Heritage Industrial Center Design Review, Chula Vista (2022; 13);  Temporary Outdoor Vehicle Storage DEIR, Port of Hueneme (2022; 29);  CNU Medical Center and Innovation Park DEIR, Natomas (2022; 35);  Beverly Boulevard Warehouse IS/MND, Pico Rivera (2021; 28);  Hagemon Properties IS/MND Amendment, Bakersfield (2022; 23);  Airport Distribution Center IS/MND, Redding (2021; 22);  Orchard on Nevada Warehouse Staff Report, Redlands (2021; 24);  Landings Logistics Center Exemption, Bakersfield (2021; 19);  Replies on Hearn Veterans Village IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 22);  North Central Valley BESS Project IS/MND, Stockton (2021; 37);  2nd Replies on Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2022; 21);  Stagecoach Solar DEIR, Barstow (2021; 24);  Updated Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2021; 35);  Freedom Circle Focus Area and Greystar General Plan Amendment Project EIR, San Jose (2021; 43);  Operon HKI Warehouse IS/MND, Perris (2021; 26);  Fairway Business Park Phase III IS/MND, Lake Elsinore (2021; 23);  South Stockton Commerce Center IS/MND, Stockton (2021; 31);  Starpoint Warehouse IS/MND, San Bernardino (2021; 24);  Replies on Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2021; 15);  Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND (2021; 11);  Alviso Hotel Project IS/MND, San Jose (2021; 43);  Replies on Easton Research Park West IS/MND, Rancho Cordova (2021; 3);  Easton Research Park West IS/MND, Rancho Cordova (2021; 31);  US Cold Storage DEIR, Hesperia (2021; 30);  1242 20th Street Wellness Center Project FEIR, Santa Monica (2021; 23); Smallwood CV 31  Third visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 10);  Roseland Creek Community Park Project IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 23);  Vista Mar Declaration of Irreparable Harm, Pacifica (2021; 3);  LogistiCenter at Fairfield IS/MND (2021; 25);  Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project IS/MND, Ranch Cucamonga (2021; 29);  Caligrows Architectural and Site Plan Review, Patterson (2021; 21);  1055 E. Sandhill Avenue Warehouse IS/MND, Carson (2021; 10);  Chestnut & Tenth Street Commercial Project IS/MND, Gilroy (2021; 27);  Libitzky Management Warehouse IS/MND, Modesto (2021; 20);  3rd Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2021; 10);  Medical Office Building DEIR, Santa Cruz (2021; 30);  Scannell Warehouse DEIR, Richmond (2021; 24);  Diamond Heights Application, San Francisco (2021; 24);  Costa Azul Mixed-Use EIR Addendum, San Diego (2021; 25);  Woodland Research Park DEIR (2021; 45);  2nd Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 9);  Replies on Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 3);  Diamond Street Industrial IS/MND, San Marcos (2021; 28);  DHS 109 Industrial Park IS/MND, Desert Hot Springs (2021; 33);  Jersey Industrial Complex Rancho Cucamonga (2022; 22);  1188 Champions Drive Parking Garage Staff Report, San Jose (2021; 5);  San Pedro Mountain, Pacifica (2021; 22);  Pixior Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2021; 29);  2nd Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2021; 9);  Hearn Veterans Village IS/MND, Santa Rosa (2021; 23);  Second visit, Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 11);  Replies on Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2021; 26);  Schulte Logistics Centre EIR, Tracy (2021; 30);  4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development EIR, Hayward (2021; 13);  Airport Business Centre IS/MND, Manteca (2021; 27);  Dual-branded Hotel IS/MND, Santa Clara (2021; 26);  Legacy Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Beaumont (2021; 47);  UC Berkeley LRDP and Housing Projects #1 and #2 EIR (2021; 27);  Santa Maria Airport Business Park EIR, Santa Maria (2021; 27);  Replies on Coachella Valley Arena EIR Addendum, Thousand Palms (2021; 20);  Coachella Valley Arena EIR Addendum, Thousand Palms (2021; 35);  Inland Harbor Warehouse NOD, Ontario (2021; 8);  Alvarado Specific Plan DEIR, La Mesa (2021; 35);  Harvill Avenue and Rider Street Terminal Project MND, Riverside (2021; 23);  Gillespie Field EIR Addendum, El Cajon (2021; 28);  Heritage Wind Energy Project section 94-c siting process, New York (2021: 99);  Commercial Street Hotels project Site Plans, Oakland (2021; 19);  Heber 1 Geothermal Repower Project MND, El Centro (2021; 11);  Citrus-Slover Warehouse Project MND, Fontana (2021; 20); Smallwood CV 32  Scott Ranch Project RDEIR (Davidon Homes), Petaluma (2021; 31);  Replies on StratosFuel Renewable H2 Project MND, Victorville (2021; 5);  StratosFuel Renewable H2 Project MND, Victorville (2021; 25);  Replies on PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2021; 22);  Baldwin-Zacharias Master Plans EIR, Patterson (2021; 38);  1000 Gibraltar Drive EIR, Milpitas (2021; 20);  Mango Avenue Industrial Warehouse Project, Fontana, MND (2021; 20);  Veterans Affairs Site Plan Review No. 20-0102 MND, Bakersfield (2021; 25);  Replies on UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2021; 13);  14 Charles Hill Circle Design Review (2021; 11);  SDG Commerce 217 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2021; 26);  Mulqueeney Ranch Wind Repowering Project DSEIR (2021; 98);  Clawiter Road Industrial Project IS/MND, Hayward (2021; 18);  Garnet Energy Center Stipulations, New York (2020);  Heritage Wind Energy Project, New York (2020: 71);  Ameresco Keller Canyon RNG Project IS/MND, Martinez (2020; 11);  Cambria Hotel Project Staff Report, Dublin (2020; 19);  Central Pointe Mixed-Use Staff Report, Santa Ana (2020; 20);  Oak Valley Town Center EIR Addendum, Calimesa (2020; 23);  Coachillin Specific Plan MND Amendment, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 26);  Stockton Avenue Hotel and Condominiums Project Tiering to EIR, San Jose (2020; 19);  Cityline Sub-block 3 South Staff Report, Sunyvale (2020; 22);  Station East Residential/Mixed Use EIR, Union City (2020; 21);  Multi-Sport Complex & Southeast Industrial Annexation Suppl. EIR, Elk Grove (2020; 24);  Sun Lakes Village North EIR Amendment 5, Banning, Riverside County (2020; 27);  2nd comments on 1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 4);  1296 Lawrence Station Road, Sunnyvale (2020; 16);  Mesa Wind Project EA, Desert Hot Springs (2020; 31);  11th Street Development Project IS/MND, City of Upland (2020; 17);  Vista Mar Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 17);  Emerson Creek Wind Project Application, Ohio (2020; 64);  Replies on Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 12);  Wister Solar Energy Facility EIR, Imperial County (2020; 28);  Crimson Solar EIS/EIR, Mojave Desert (2020, 35) not submitted;  Sakioka Farms EIR tiering, Oxnard (2020; 14);  3440 Wilshire Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2020; 19);  Replies on 2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 8);  2400 Barranca Office Development Project EIR, Irvine (2020; 25);  Replies on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 4);  2nd comments on Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 8);  Heber 2 Geothermal Repower Project IS/MND, El Centro (2020; 3);  Lots 4-12 Oddstad Way Project IS/MND, Pacifica (2020; 16);  Declaration on DDG Visalia Warehouse project (2020; 5);  Terraces of Lafayette EIR Addendum (2020; 24); Smallwood CV 33  AMG Industrial Annex IS/MND, Los Banos (2020; 15);  Replies to responses on Casmalia and Linden Warehouse, Rialto (2020; 15);  Clover Project MND, Petaluma (2020; 27);  Ruby Street Apartments Project Env. Checklist, Hayward (2020; 20);  Replies to responses on 3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 5);  3721 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Staff Report (2020; 9);  Steeno Warehouse IS/MND, Hesperia (2020; 19);  UCSF Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan EIR (2020; 24);  North Pointe Business Center MND, Fresno (2020; 14);  Casmalia and Linden Warehouse IS, Fontana (2020; 15);  Rubidoux Commerce Center Project IS/MND, Jurupa Valley (2020; 27);  Haun and Holland Mixed Use Center MND, Menifee (2020; 23);  First Industrial Logistics Center II, Moreno Valley IS/MND (2020; 23);  GLP Store Warehouse Project Staff Report (2020; 15);  Replies on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 29);  2nd comments on Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 34);  Beale WAPA Interconnection Project EA & CEQA checklist (2020; 30);  Levine-Fricke Softball Field Improvement Addendum, UC Berkeley (2020; 16);  Greenlaw Partners Warehouse and Distribution Center Staff Report, Palmdale (2020; 14);  Humboldt Wind Energy Project DEIR (2019; 25);  Sand Hill Supplemental EIR, Altamont Pass (2019; 17);  1700 Dell Avenue Office Project, Campbell (2019, 28);  1180 Main Street Office Project MND, Redwood City (2019; 19:  Summit Ridge Wind Farm Request for Amendment 4, Oregon (2019; 46);  Shafter Warehouse Staff Report (2019; 4);  Park & Broadway Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Pacific Heights Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Pinnacle Park & C Design Review, San Diego (2019; 19);  Preserve at Torrey Highlands EIR, San Diego (2019; 24);  Santana West Project EIR Addendum, San Jose (2019; 18);  The Ranch at Eastvale EIR Addendum, Riverside County (2020; 19);  Hageman Warehouse IS/MND, Bakersfield (2019; 13);  Oakley Logistics Center EIR, Antioch (2019; 22);  27 South First Street IS, San Jose (2019; 23);  2nd replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 11);  Replies on Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2020; 13);  Times Mirror Square Project EIR, Los Angeles (2019; 18);  East Monte Vista & Aviator General Plan Amend EIR Addendum, Vacaville (2019; 22);  Hillcrest LRDP EIR, La Jolla (2019; 36);  555 Portola Road CUP, Portola Valley (2019; 11);  Johnson Drive Economic Development Zone SEIR, Pleasanton (2019; 27);  1750 Broadway Project CEQA Exemption, Oakland (2019; 19);  Mor Furniture Project MND, Murietta Hot Springs (2019; 27);  Harbor View Project EIR, Redwood City (2019; 26); Smallwood CV 34  Visalia Logistics Center (2019; 13);  Cordelia Industrial Buildings MND (2019; 14);  Scheu Distribution Center IS/ND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 13);  Mills Park Center Staff Report, San Bruno (2019; 22);  Site visit to Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 9);  Desert Highway Farms IS/MND, Imperial County (2019; 12);  ExxonMobil Interim Trucking for Santa Ynez Unit Restart SEIR, Santa Barbara (2019; 9);  Olympic Holdings Inland Center Warehouse Project MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2019; 14);  Replies to responses on Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse, Banning (2019; 19);  PARS Global Storage MND, Murietta (2019; 13);  Slover Warehouse EIR Addendum, Fontana (2019; 16);  Seefried Warehouse Project IS/MND, Lathrop (2019; 19)  World Logistics Center Site Visit, Moreno Valley (2019; 19);  Merced Landfill Gas-To-Energy Project IS/MND (2019; 12);  West Village Expansion FEIR, UC Davis (2019; 11);  Site visit, Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2019; 11);  Replies to responses on Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 10);  Avalon West Valley Expansion EIR, San Jose (2019; 22);  Sunroad – Otay 50 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 26);  Del Rey Pointe Residential Project IS/MND, Los Angeles (2019; 34);  1 AMD Redevelopment EIR, Sunnyvale (2019; 22);  Lawrence Equipment Industrial Warehouse IS/MND, Banning (2019; 14);  SDG Commerce 330 Warehouse IS, American Canyon (2019; 21);  PAMA Business Center IS/MND, Moreno Valley (2019; 23);  Cupertino Village Hotel IS (2019; 24);  Lake House IS/ND, Lodi (2019; 33);  Campo Wind Project DEIS, San Diego County (DEIS, (2019; 14);  Stirling Warehouse MND site visit, Victorville (2019; 7);  Green Valley II Mixed-Use Project EIR, Fairfield (2019; 36);  We Be Jammin rezone MND, Fresno (2019; 14);  Gray Whale Cove Pedestrian Crossing IS/ND, Pacifica (2019; 7);  Visalia Logistics Center & DDG 697V Staff Report (2019; 9);  Mather South Community Masterplan Project EIR (2019; 35);  Del Hombre Apartments EIR, Walnut Creek (2019; 23);  Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 EIR Addendum, Chula Vista (2019; 21);  The Retreat at Sacramento IS/MND (2019; 26);  Site visit to Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2019; 9);  Sunroad – Centrum 6 EIR Addendum, San Diego (2018; 22);  North First and Brokaw Corporate Campus Buildings EIR Addendum, San Jose (2018; 30);  South Lake Solar IS, Fresno County (2018; 18);  Galloo Island Wind Project Application, New York (not submitted) (2018; 44);  Doheny Ocean Desalination EIR, Dana Point (2018; 15);  Stirling Warehouse MND, Victorville (2018; 18);  LDK Warehouse MND, Vacaville (2018; 30); Smallwood CV 35  Gateway Crossings FEIR, Santa Clara (2018; 23);  South Hayward Development IS/MND (2018; 9);  CBU Specific Plan Amendment, Riverside (2018; 27);  2nd replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 11);  Replies to responses on Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 7);  Dove Hill Road Assisted Living Project MND (2018; 12);  Deer Ridge/Shadow Lakes Golf Course EIR, Brentwood (2018; 21);  Pyramid Asphalt BLM Finding of No Significance, Imperial County (2018; 22);  Amáre Apartments IS/MND, Martinez (2018; 15);  Petaluma Hill Road Cannabis MND, Santa Rosa (2018; 21);  2nd comments on Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 12);  Zeiss Innovation Center IS/MND, Dublin (2018: 32);  City of Hope Campus Plan EIR, Duarte (2018; 21);  Palo Verde Center IS/MND, Blythe (2018; 14);  Logisticenter at Vacaville MND (2018; 24);  IKEA Retail Center SEIR, Dublin (2018; 17);  Merge 56 EIR, San Diego (2018; 15);  Natomas Crossroads Quad B Office Project P18-014 EIR, Sacramento (2018; 12);  2900 Harbor Bay Parkway Staff Report, Alameda (2018; 30);  At Dublin EIR, Dublin (2018; 25);  Fresno Industrial Rezone Amendment Application No. 3807 IS (2018; 10);  Nova Business Park IS/MND, Napa (2018; 18);  Updated Collision Risk Model Priors for Estimating Eagle Fatalities, USFWS (2018; 57);  750 Marlborough Avenue Warehouse MND, Riverside (2018; 14);  Replies to responses on San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 12);  San Bernardino Logistics Center IS (2018; 19);  CUP2017-16, Costco IS/MND, Clovis (2018; 11);  Desert Land Ventures Specific Plan EIR, Desert Hot Springs (2018; 18);  Ventura Hilton IS/MND (2018; 30);  North of California Street Master Plan Project IS, Mountain View (2018: 11);  Tamarind Warehouse MND, Fontana (2018; 16);  Lathrop Gateway Business Park EIR Addendum (2018; 23);  Centerpointe Commerce Center IS, Moreno Valley (2019; 18);  Amazon Warehouse Notice of Exemption, Bakersfield (2018; 13);  CenterPoint Building 3 project Staff Report, Manteca (2018; 23);  Cessna & Aviator Warehouse IS/MND, Vacaville (2018; 24);  Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR, American Canyon (2018, 15);  800 Opal Warehouse Initial Study, Mentone, San Bernardino County (2018; 18);  2695 W. Winton Ave Industrial Project IS, Hayward (2018; 22);  Trinity Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing Facility DEIR, Calexico (2018; 15);  Shoe Palace Expansion IS/MND, Morgan Hill (2018; 21);  Newark Warehouse at Morton Salt Plant Staff Report (2018; 15);  Northlake Specific Plan FEIR “Peer Review”, Los Angeles County (2018; 9);  Replies to responses on Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2018; 13); Smallwood CV 36  Northlake Specific Plan SEIR, Los Angeles County (2017; 27);  Bogle Wind Turbine DEIR, east Yolo County (2017; 48);  Ferrante Apartments IS/MND, Los Angeles (2017; 14);  The Villages of Lakeview EIR, Riverside (2017; 28);  Data Needed for Assessing Trail Management Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl, Marin County (2017; 5);  Notes on Proposed Study Options for Trail Impacts on Northern Spotted Owl (2017; 4);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (Declaration) (2017; 5);  San Gorgonio Crossings EIR, Riverside County (2017; 22);  Replies to responses on Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley (2017; 12);  Proposed World Logistics Center Mitigation Measures, Moreno Valley (2017, 2019; 12);  MacArthur Transit Village Project Modified 2016 CEQA Analysis (2017; 12);  PG&E Company Bay Area Operations and Maintenance HCP (2017; 45);  Central SoMa Plan DEIR (2017; 14);  Suggested mitigation for trail impacts on northern spotted owl, Marin County (2016; 5);  Colony Commerce Center Specific Plan DEIR, Ontario (2016; 16);  Fairway Trails Improvements MND, Marin County (2016; 13);  Review of Avian-Solar Science Plan (2016; 28);  Replies on Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 5);  Pyramid Asphalt IS, Imperial County (2016; 4);  Agua Mansa Distribution Warehouse Project Initial Study (2016; 14);  Santa Anita Warehouse MND, Rancho Cucamonga (2016; 12);  CapRock Distribution Center III DEIR, Rialto (2016: 12);  Orange Show Logistics Center IS/MND, San Bernardino (2016; 9);  City of Palmdale Oasis Medical Village Project IS/MND (2016; 7);  Comments on proposed rule for incidental eagle take, USFWS (2016, 49);  Replies on Grapevine Specific and Community Plan FEIR, Kern County (2016; 25);  Grapevine Specific and Community Plan DEIR, Kern County (2016; 15);  Clinton County Zoning Ordinance for Wind Turbine siting (2016);  Hallmark at Shenandoah Warehouse Project Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 6);  Tri-City Industrial Complex Initial Study, San Bernardino (2016; 5);  Hidden Canyon Industrial Park Plot Plan 16-PP-02, Beaumont (2016; 12);  Kimball Business Park DEIR (2016; 10);  Jupiter Project IS and MND, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County (2016; 9);  Revised Draft Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan of 2015 (2016, 18);  Palo Verde Mesa Solar Project EIR, Blythe (2016; 27);  Reply on Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 14);  Fairview Wind Project Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario, Canada (2016; 41);  Reply on Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 38);  Amherst Island Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 31);  Second Reply on White Pines Wind Farm, Ontario (2015, 6);  Reply on White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 10);  White Pines Wind Farm Natural Heritage Assessment, Ontario (2015, 9);  Proposed Section 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians DEIS (2015, 9); Smallwood CV 37  Replies on 24 Specific Plan Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians FEIS (2015, 6);  Sierra Lakes Commerce Center Project DEIR, Fontana (2015, 9);  Columbia Business Center MND, Riverside (2015; 8);  West Valley Logistics Center Specific Plan DEIR, Fontana (2015, 10);  Willow Springs Solar Photovoltaic Project DEIR (2015, 28);  Alameda Creek Bridge Replacement Project DEIR (2015, 10);  World Logistic Center Specific Plan FEIR, Moreno Valley (2015, 12);  Elkhorn Valley Wind Power Project Impacts, Oregon (2015; 143);  Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS, Sacramento (2014, 21);  Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);  Replies on the Addison Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Addison and Rising Tree Wind Energy Project FEIR, Mojave (2014, 12);  Palen Solar Electric Generating System FSA (CEC), Blythe (2014, 20);  Rebuttal testimony on Palen Solar Energy Generating System (2014, 9);  Seven Mile Hill and Glenrock/Rolling Hills impacts + Addendum, Wyoming (2014; 105);  Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 32);  Replies on the Rising Tree Wind Energy Project DEIR, Mojave (2014, 15);  Soitec Solar Development Project PEIR, Boulevard, San Diego County (2014, 18);  Oakland Zoo expansion on Alameda whipsnake and California red-legged frog (2014; 3);  Alta East Wind Energy Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013, 23);  Blythe Solar Power Project Staff Assessment, California Energy Commission (2013, 16);  Clearwater and Yakima Solar Projects DEIR, Kern County (2013, 9);  West Antelope Solar Energy Project IS/MND, Antelope Valley (2013, 18);  Cuyama Solar Project DEIR, Carrizo Plain (2014, 19);  Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) EIR/EIS (2015, 49);  Kingbird Solar Photovoltaic Project EIR, Kern County (2013, 19);  Lucerne Valley Solar Project IS/MND, San Bernardino County (2013, 12);  Tule Wind project FEIR/FEIS (Declaration) (2013; 31);  Sunlight Partners LANDPRO Solar Project MND (2013; 11);  Declaration in opposition to BLM fracking (2013; 5);  Blythe Energy Project (solar) CEC Staff Assessment (2013;16);  Rosamond Solar Project EIR Addendum, Kern County (2013; 13);  Pioneer Green Solar Project EIR, Bakersfield (2013; 13);  Replies on Soccer Center Solar Project MND (2013; 6);  Soccer Center Solar Project MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Plainview Solar Works MND, Lancaster (2013; 10);  Alamo Solar Project MND, Mojave Desert (2013; 15);  Replies on Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 10);  Imperial Valley Solar Company 2 Project (2013; 13);  FRV Orion Solar Project DEIR, Kern County (PP12232) (2013; 9);  Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 6);  Reply on Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project (2013; 8);  Alta East Wind Project FEIS, Tehachapi Pass (2013; 23);  Metropolitan Air Park DEIR, City of San Diego (2013; ); Smallwood CV 38  Davidon Homes Tentative Subdivision Rezoning Project DEIR, Petaluma (2013; 9);  Oakland Zoo Expansion Impacts on Alameda Whipsnake (2013; 10);  Campo Verde Solar project FEIR, Imperial Valley (2013; 11pp);  Neg Dec comments on Davis Sewer Trunk Rehabilitation (2013; 8);  North Steens Transmission Line FEIS, Oregon (Declaration) (2012; 62);  Summer Solar and Springtime Solar Projects IS/MND Lancaster (2012; 8);  J&J Ranch, 24 Adobe Lane Environmental Review, Orinda (2012; 14);  Replies on Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 8);  Hudson Ranch Power II Geothermal Project and Simbol Calipatria Plant II (2012; 9);  Desert Harvest Solar Project EIS, near Joshua Tree (2012; 15);  Solar Gen 2 Array Project DEIR, El Centro (2012; 16);  Ocotillo Sol Project EIS, Imperial Valley (2012; 4);  Beacon Photovoltaic Project DEIR, Kern County (2012; 5);  Butte Water District 2012 Water Transfer Program IS/MND (2012; 11);  Mount Signal and Calexico Solar Farm Projects DEIR (2011; 16);  City of Elk Grove Sphere of Influence EIR (2011; 28);  Sutter Landing Park Solar Photovoltaic Project MND, Sacramento (2011; 9);  Rabik/Gudath Project, 22611 Coleman Valley Road, Bodega Bay (CPN 10-0002) (2011; 4);  Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) (Declaration) (2011; 9);  Draft Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance, USFWS (2011; 13);  Niles Canyon Safety Improvement Project EIR/EA (2011; 16);  Route 84 Safety Improvement Project (Declaration) (2011; 7);  Rebuttal on Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, (2010; 6);  Whistling Ridge Wind Energy Power DEIS, Skamania County, Washington (2010; 41);  Klickitat County’s Decisions on Windy Flats West Wind Energy Project (2010; 17);  St. John's Church Project DEIR, Orinda (2010; 14);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001 IS/MND, Conaway site, Davis (2010; 20);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project FEIR, Rancho Cordova (2010;12);  Results Radio Zone File #2009-001, Mace Blvd site, Davis (2009; 10);  Answers to Questions on 33% RPS Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results Report (2009; 9);  SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Second Declaration) (2008; 17);  Draft 1A Summary Report to CAISO (2008; 10);  Hilton Manor Project Categorical Exemption, County of Placer (2009; 9);  Protest of CARE to Amendment to the Power Purchase and Sale Agreement for Procurement of Eligible Renewable Energy Resources Between Hatchet Ridge Wind LLC and PG&E (2009; 3);  Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project EIR/EIS (2009; 142);  Delta Shores Project EIR, south Sacramento (2009; 11 + addendum 2);  Declaration in Support of Care’s Petition to Modify D.07-09-040 (2008; 3);  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis December 16 Workshop for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 9); Smallwood CV 39  The Public Utility Commission’s Implementation Analysis Draft Work Plan for the Governor’s Executive Order S-14-08 to implement a 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2020 (2008; 11);  Draft 1A Summary Report to California Independent System Operator for Planning Reserve Margins (PRM) Study (2008; 7.);  SEPA Determination of Non-significance regarding zoning adjustments for Skamania County, Washington (Declaration) (2008; 16);  Colusa Generating Station, California Energy Commission PSA (2007; 24);  Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Recirculated DEIR, Mather (2008: 66);  Replies on Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008; 20);  Regional University Specific Plan EIR, Roseville (2008: 33);  Clark Precast, LLC’s “Sugarland” project, ND, Woodland (2008: 15);  Cape Wind Project DEIS, Nantucket (2008; 157);  Yuba Highlands Specific Plan EIR, Spenceville, Yuba County (2006; 37);  Replies to responses on North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 5);  North Table Mountain MND, Butte County (2006; 15);  Windy Point Wind Farm EIS (2006; 14 and Powerpoint slide replies);  Shiloh I Wind Power Project EIR, Rio Vista (2005; 18);  Buena Vista Wind Energy Project NOP, Byron (2004; 15);  Callahan Estates Subdivision ND, Winters (2004; 11);  Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 9);  Winters Highlands Subdivision IS/ND (2004; 13);  Creekside Highlands Project, Tract 7270 ND (2004; 21);  Petition to California Fish and Game Commission to list Burrowing Owl (2003; 10);  Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area CUP renewals, Alameda County (2003; 41);  UC Davis Long Range Development Plan: Neighborhood Master Plan (2003; 23);  Anderson Marketplace Draft Environmental Impact Report (2003; 18);  Negative Declaration of the proposed expansion of Temple B’nai Tikyah (2003; 6);  Antonio Mountain Ranch Specific Plan Public Draft EIR (2002; 23);  Replies on East Altamont Energy Center evidentiary hearing (2002; 9);  Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Promenade (2002; 7);  Recirculated Initial Study for Calpine’s proposed Pajaro Valley Energy Center (2002; 3);  UC Merced -- Declaration (2002; 5);  Replies on Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision FEIR (2003; 22);  Atwood Ranch Unit III Subdivision EIR (2002; 19);  California Energy Commission Staff Report on GWF Tracy Peaker Project (2002; 20);  Silver Bend Apartments IS/MND, Placer County (2002; 13);  UC Merced Long-range Development Plan DEIR and UC Merced Community Plan DEIR (2001; 26);  Colusa County Power Plant IS, Maxwell (2001; 6);  Dog Park at Catlin Park, Folsom, California (2001; 5);  Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Biological Resources Implementation and Monitoring Program (BRMIMP) for the Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 10);  Metcalf Energy Center, California Energy Commission FSA (2000);  US Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 consultation with the California Energy Commission Smallwood CV 40 regarding Calpine and Bechtel Corporations’ Metcalf Energy Center (2000; 4);  California Energy Commission’s Preliminary Staff Assessment of the proposed Metcalf Energy Center (2000: 11);  Site-specific management plans for the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s mitigation lands, prepared by Wildlands, Inc. (2000: 7);  Affidavit of K. Shawn Smallwood in Spirit of the Sage Council, et al. (Plaintiffs) vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, et al. (Defendants), Injuries caused by the No Surprises policy and final rule which codifies that policy (1999: 9).  California Board of Forestry’s proposed amended Forest Practices Rules (1999);  Sunset Skyranch Airport Use Permit IS/MND (1999);  Ballona West Bluffs Project Environmental Impact Report (1999; oral presentation);  Draft Recovery Plan for Giant Garter Snake (Fed. Reg. 64(176): 49497-49498) (1999; 8);  Draft Recovery Plan for Arroyo Southwestern Toad (1998);  Pacific Lumber Co. (Headwaters) HCP & EIR, Fortuna (1998; 28);  Natomas Basin HCP Permit Amendment, Sacramento (1998);  San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Program FEIS/FEIR (1997; 10); Comments on other Environmental Review Documents:  Proposed Regulation for California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 (2015: 12);  Statement of Overriding Considerations related to extending Altamont Winds, Inc.’s Conditional Use Permit PLN2014-00028 (2015; 8);  Covell Village PEIR, Davis (2005; 19);  Bureau of Land Management Wind Energy Programmatic EIS Scoping (2003; 7.);  NEPA Environmental Analysis for Biosafety Level 4 National Biocontainment Laboratory (NBL) at UC Davis (2003: 7);  Notice of Preparation of UC Merced Community and Area Plan EIR, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2001: 8.);  Preliminary Draft Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan (2001; 2 letters totaling 35.);  Merced County General Plan Revision, notice of Negative Declaration (2001: 2.);  Notice of Preparation of Campus Parkway EIR/EIS (2001: 7.);  Draft Recovery Plan for the bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Range (Ovis candensis) (2000);  Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii), on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 10.);  Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, on behalf of The Wildlife Society—Western Section (2000: 7.);  State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Draft Program EIR (1997);  Davis General Plan Update EIR (2000);  Turn of the Century EIR (1999: 10);  Proposed termination of Critical Habitat Designation under the Endangered Species Act (Fed. Reg. 64(113): 31871-31874) (1999);  NOA Draft Addendum to the Final Handbook for Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permitting Process, termed the HCP 5-Point Policy Plan (Fed. Reg. 64(45): 11485 - 11490) (1999; 2 + attachments);  Covell Center Project EIR and EIR Supplement (1997). Smallwood CV 41 Position Statements I prepared the following position statements for the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, and one for nearly 200 scientists:  Recommended that the California Department of Fish and Game prioritize the extermination of the introduced southern water snake in northern California. The Wildlife Society-- Western Section (2001);  Recommended that The Wildlife Society—Western Section appoint or recommend members of the independent scientific review panel for the UC Merced environmental review process (2001);  Opposed the siting of the University of California’s 10th campus on a sensitive vernal pool/grassland complex east of Merced. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the legalization of ferret ownership in California. The Wildlife Society--Western Section (2000);  Opposed the Proposed “No Surprises,” “Safe Harbor,” and “Candidate Conservation Agreement” rules, including permit-shield protection provisions (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 103, pp. 29091-29098 and No. 113, pp. 32189-32194). This statement was signed by 188 scientists and went to the responsible federal agencies, as well as to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Posters at Professional Meetings Leyvas, E. and K. S. Smallwood. 2015. Rehabilitating injured animals to offset and rectify wind project impacts. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S., J. Mount, S. Standish, E. Leyvas, D. Bell, E. Walther, B. Karas. 2015. Integrated detection trials to improve the accuracy of fatality rate estimates at wind projects. Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 9-12 March 2015. Smallwood, K. S. and C. G. Thelander. 2005. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research in the Altamont Pass WRA. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Neher, L., L. Wilder, J. Woo, L. Spiegel, D. Yen-Nakafugi, and K.S. Smallwood. 2005. Bird’s eye view on California wind. AWEA conference, Denver, May 2005. Smallwood, K. S., C. G. Thelander and L. Spiegel. 2003. Toward a predictive model of avian fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Windpower 2003 Conference and Convention, Austin, Texas. Smallwood, K.S. and Eva Butler. 2002. Pocket Gopher Response to Yellow Star-thistle Eradication as part of Grassland Restoration at Decommissioned Mather Air Force Base, Sacramento County, California. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and Michael L. Morrison. 2002. Fresno kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides) Conservation Research at Resources Management Area 5, Lemoore Naval Air Station. White Mountain Research Station Open House, Barcroft Station. Smallwood, K.S. and E.L. Fitzhugh. 1989. Differentiating mountain lion and dog tracks. Third Smallwood CV 42 Mountain Lion Workshop, Prescott, AZ. Smith, T. R. and K. S. Smallwood. 2000. Effects of study area size, location, season, and allometry on reported Sorex shrew densities. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society. Presentations at Professional Meetings and Seminars Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in the Altamont. Golden Gate Audubon, 21 October 2020. Long-Term Population Trend of Burrowing Owls in the Altamont. East Bay Regional Park District 2020 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 18 November 2020. Smallwood, K.S., D.A. Bell, and S, Standish. Dogs detect larger wind energy effects on bats and birds. The Wildlife Society, 28 September 2020. Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society, 28 September 2020. Smallwood, K.S., D.A. Bell, and S, Standish. Dogs detect larger wind energy effects on bats and birds. The Wildlife Survey, 7 February 2020. Smallwood, K.S. and D.A. Bell. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Survey, 7 February 2020. Dog detections of bat and bird fatalities at wind farms in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. East Bay Regional Park District 2019 Stewardship Seminar, Oakland, California, 13 November 2019. Repowering the Altamont Pass. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017. Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, 1999- 2007. Altamont Symposium, The Wildlife Society – Western Section, 5 February 2017. Conservation and recovery of burrowing owls in Santa Clara Valley. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency, Newark, California, 3 February 2017. Mitigation of Raptor Fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Sacramento, California, 6 November 2015. From burrows to behavior: Research and management for burrowing owls in a diverse landscape. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, 24 October 2015, San Jose, California. The Challenges of repowering. Keynote presentation at Conference on Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts, Berlin, Germany, 10 March 2015. Research Highlights Altamont Pass 2011-2015. Scientific Review Committee, Oakland, California, Smallwood CV 43 8 July 2015. Siting wind turbines to minimize raptor collisions: Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. US Fish and Wildlife Service Golden Eagle Working Group, Sacramento, California, 8 January 2015. Evaluation of nest boxes as a burrowing owl conservation strategy. Sacramento Chapter of the Western Section, The Wildlife Society. Sacramento, California, 26 August 2013. Predicting collision hazard zones to guide repowering of the Altamont Pass. Conference on wind power and environmental impacts. Stockholm, Sweden, 5-7 February 2013. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife. California Council for Wildlife Rehabilitators, Yosemite, California, 12 November 2012. Impacts of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats. Madrone Audubon Society, Santa Rosa, California, 20 February 2012. Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. California Energy Commission Staff Workshop: Reducing the Impacts of Energy Infrastructure on Wildlife, 20 July 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Alameda County Scientific Review Committee meeting, 17 February 2011 Comparing Wind Turbine Impacts across North America. Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Norway, 3 May 2011. Update on Wildlife Impacts in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Siting Repowered Wind Turbines to Minimize Raptor Collisions. Raptor Symposium, The Wildlife Society - Western Section, Riverside, California, February 2011. Wildlife mortality caused by wind turbine collisions. Ecological Society of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6 August 2010. Map-based repowering and reorganization of a wind farm to minimize burrowing owl fatalities. California burrowing Owl Consortium Meeting, Livermore, California, 6 February 2010. Environmental barriers to wind power. Getting Real About Renewables: Economic and Environmental Barriers to Biofuels and Wind Energy. A symposium sponsored by the Environmental & Energy Law & Policy Journal, University of Houston Law Center, Houston, 23 February 2007. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Meeting with Japan Ministry of the Environment and Japan Ministry of the Economy, Wild Smallwood CV 44 Bird Society of Japan, and other NGOs Tokyo, Japan, 9 November 2006. Lessons learned about bird collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass and other US wind farms. Symposium on bird collisions with wind turbines. Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 4 November 2006. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. California Society for Ecological Restoration (SERCAL) 13th Annual Conference, UC Santa Barbara, 27 October 2006. Fatality associations as the basis for predictive models of fatalities in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EEI/APLIC/PIER Workshop, 2006 Biologist Task Force and Avian Interaction with Electric Facilities Meeting, Pleasanton, California, 28 April 2006. Burrowing owl burrows and wind turbine collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, February 8, 2006. Mitigation at wind farms. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Incorporating data from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system into an impact assessment tool for birds near wind farms. Shawn Smallwood, Kevin Hunting, Marcus Yee, Linda Spiegel, Monica Parisi. Workshop: Understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. American Wind Energy Association and Audubon Society. Los Angeles, CA. January 10 and 11, 2006. Toward indicating threats to birds by California’s new wind farms. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Avian collisions in the Altamont Pass. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, May 26, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. EPRI Environmental Sector Council, Monterey, California, February 17, 2005. Ecological solutions for avian collisions with wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. The Wildlife Society—Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Associations between avian fatalities and attributes of electric distribution poles in California. The Wildlife Society - Western Section Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, January 19, 2005. Minimizing avian mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area. UC Davis Wind Energy Collaborative Forum, Palm Springs, California, December 14, 2004. Selecting electric distribution poles for priority retrofitting to reduce raptor mortality. Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Bakersfield, California, November 10, 2004. Responses of Fresno kangaroo rats to habitat improvements in an adaptive management framework. Smallwood CV 45 Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration, South Lake Tahoe, California, October 16, 2004. Lessons learned from five years of avian mortality research at the Altamont Pass Wind Resources Area in California. The Wildlife Society Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, September 2004. The ecology and impacts of power generation at Altamont Pass. Sacramento Petroleum Association, Sacramento, California, August 18, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Consortium meeting, Hayward, California, February 7, 2004. Burrowing owl mortality in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, November 2, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C., November 17, 2003. Raptor Behavior at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. Raptor Mortality at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Annual Meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Anchorage, Alaska, September, 2003. California mountain lions. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biology, California State University, Sacramento, November, 2000. Intra- and inter-turbine string comparison of fatalities to animal burrow densities at Altamont Pass. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Carmel, California, May, 2000. Using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) to map wildlife and habitat. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Suggested standards for science applied to conservation issues. Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. The indicators framework applied to ecological restoration in Yolo County, California. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 25, 1999. Ecological restoration in the context of animal social units and their habitat areas. Society for Ecological Restoration, September 24, 1999. Relating Indicators of Ecological Health and Integrity to Assess Risks to Sustainable Agriculture and Native Biota. International Conference on Ecosystem Health, August 16, 1999. A crosswalk from the Endangered Species Act to the HCP Handbook and real HCPs. Southern California Edison, Co. and California Energy Commission, March 4-5, 1999. Smallwood CV 46 Mountain lion track counts in California: Implications for Management. Ecological & Environmental Issues Seminar, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Sacramento, November 4, 1998. “No Surprises” -- Lack of science in the HCP process. California Native Plant Society Annual Conservation Conference, The Presidio, San Francisco, September 7, 1997. In Your Interest. A half hour weekly show aired on Channel 10 Television, Sacramento. In this episode, I served on a panel of experts discussing problems with the implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Aired August 31, 1997. Spatial scaling of pocket gopher (Geomyidae) density. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Estimating prairie dog and pocket gopher burrow volume. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 44th Meeting, Fayetteville, Arkansas, April 10, 1997. Ten years of mountain lion track survey. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Study and interpretive design effects on mountain lion density estimates. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop, San Diego, February 27, 1996. Small animal control. Session moderator and speaker at the California Farm Conference, Sacramento, California, Feb. 28, 1995. Small animal control. Ecological Farming Conference, Asylomar, California, Jan. 28, 1995. Habitat associations of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Sacramento Valley’s agricultural landscape. 1994 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Flagstaff, Arizona. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Seed Industry Conference, Woodland, California, May 4, 1994. Habitats and vertebrate pests: impacts and management. Managing Farmland to Bring Back Game Birds and Wildlife to the Central Valley. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, U.C. Davis, February 19, 1994. Management of gophers and alfalfa as wildlife habitat. Orland Alfalfa Production Meeting and Sacramento Valley Alfalfa Production Meeting, February 1 and 2, 1994. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Seminar Series: Recent Advances in Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, U.C. Davis, Dec. 6, 1993. Alfalfa as wildlife habitat. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 9, 1993. Management of pocket gophers in Sacramento Valley alfalfa. California Alfalfa Symposium, Fresno, California, Dec. 8, 1993. Smallwood CV 47 Association analysis of raptors in a farming landscape. Plenary speaker at Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, Charlotte, North Carolina, Nov. 6, 1993. Landscape strategies for biological control and IPM. Plenary speaker, International Conference on Integrated Resource Management and Sustainable Agriculture, Beijing, China, Sept. 11, 1993. Landscape Ecology Study of Pocket Gophers in Alfalfa. Alfalfa Field Day, U.C. Davis, July 1993. Patterns of wildlife movement in a farming landscape. Spatial Data Analysis Colloquium, U.C. Davis, August 6, 1993. Sound stewardship of wildlife. Veterinary Medicine Seminar: Ethics of Animal Use, U.C. Davis. May 1993. Landscape ecology study of pocket gophers in alfalfa. Five County Grower's Meeting, Tracy, California. February 1993. Turbulence and the community organizers: The role of invading species in ordering a turbulent system, and the factors for invasion success. Ecology Graduate Student Association Colloquium, U.C. Davis. May 1990. Evaluation of exotic vertebrate pests. Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference, Sacramento, California. March 1990. Analytical methods for predicting success of mammal introductions to North America. The Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii. February 1988. A state-wide mountain lion track survey. Sacramento County Dept Parks and Recreation. April 1986. The mountain lion in California. Davis Chapter of the Audubon Society. October 1985. Ecology Graduate Student Seminars, U.C. Davis, 1985-1990: Social behavior of the mountain lion; Mountain lion control; Political status of the mountain lion in California. Other forms of Participation at Professional Meetings  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Berlin, Germany, March 2015.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Stockholm, Sweden, February 2013.  Workshop co-presenter at Birds & Wind Energy Specialist Group (BAWESG) Information sharing week, Bird specialist studies for proposed wind energy facilities in South Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Darling, South Africa, 3-7 October 2011.  Scientific Committee, Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, Trondheim, Smallwood CV 48 Norway, 2-5 May 2011.  Chair of Animal Damage Management Session, The Wildlife Society, Annual Meeting, Reno, Nevada, September 26, 2001.  Chair of Technical Session: Human communities and ecosystem health: Comparing perspectives and making connection. Managing for Ecosystem Health, International Congress on Ecosystem Health, Sacramento, CA August 15-20, 1999.  Student Awards Committee, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000.  Student Mentor, Annual Meeting of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, Riverside, CA, January, 2000. Printed Mass Media Smallwood, K.S., D. Mooney, and M. McGuinness. 2003. We must stop the UCD biolab now. Op- Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Spring Lake threatens Davis. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. Summer, 2001. Mitigation of habitation. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Entrikan, R.K. and K.S. Smallwood. 2000. Measure O: Flawed law would lock in new taxes. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 2000. Davis delegation lobbies Congress for Wildlife conservation. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. Davis Visions. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. Last grab for Yolo’s land and water. The Flatlander, Davis, California. Smallwood, K.S. 1997. The Yolo County HCP. Op-Ed to the Davis Enterprise. Radio/Television PBS News Hour, FOX News, Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development, August 2011. KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Mountain lion attacks (with guest Professor Richard Coss). 23 April 2009; KXJZ Capital Public Radio -- Insight (Host Jeffrey Callison). Wind farm Rio Vista Renewable Power. 4 September 2008; Smallwood CV 49 KQED QUEST Episode #111. Bird collisions with wind turbines. 2007; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. December 27, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. May 3, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Yolo County HCP: 1 hour. February 8, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick & Shawn Smallwood), California Energy Crisis: 1 hour. Jan. 25, 2001; KDVS Speaking in Tongues (host Ron Glick), Headwaters Forest HCP: 1 hour. 1998; Davis Cable Channel (host Gerald Heffernon), Burrowing owls in Davis: half hour. June, 2000; Davis Cable Channel (hosted by Davis League of Women Voters), Measure O debate: 1 hour. October, 2000; KXTV 10, In Your Interest, The Endangered Species Act: half hour. 1997. Committees • Scientific Review Committee, Alameda County, Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area • Ph.D. Thesis Committee, Steve Anderson, University of California, Davis • MS Thesis Committee, Marcus Yee, California State University, Sacramento Other Professional Activities or Products Testified in Federal Court in Denver during 2005 over the fate of radio-nuclides in the soil at Rocky Flats Plant after exposure to burrowing animals. My clients won a judgment of $553,000,000. I have also testified in many other cases of litigation under CEQA, NEPA, the Warren-Alquist Act, and other environmental laws. My clients won most of the cases for which I testified. Testified before Environmental Review Tribunals in Ontario, Canada regarding proposed White Pines, Amherst Island, and Fairview Wind Energy projects. Testified in Skamania County Hearing in 2009 on the potential impacts of zoning the County for development of wind farms and hazardous waste facilities. Testified in deposition in 2007 in the case of O’Dell et al. vs. FPL Energy in Houston, Texas. Testified in Klickitat County Hearing in 2006 on the potential impacts of the Windy Point Wind Farm. Memberships in Professional Societies The Wildlife Society Raptor Research Foundation Smallwood CV 50 Honors and Awards Fulbright Research Fellowship to Indonesia, 1987 J.G. Boswell Full Academic Scholarship, 1981 college of choice Certificate of Appreciation, The Wildlife Society—Western Section, 2000, 2001 Northern California Athletic Association Most Valuable Cross Country Runner, 1984 American Legion Award, Corcoran High School, 1981, and John Muir Junior High, 1977 CIF Section Champion, Cross Country in 1978 CIF Section Champion, Track & Field 2 mile run in 1981 National Junior Record, 20 kilometer run, 1982 National Age Group Record, 1500 meter run, 1978 Community Activities District 64 Little League Umpire, 2003-2007 Dixon Little League Umpire, 2006-07 Davis Little League Chief Umpire and Board member, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Safety Officer, 2004-2005 Davis Little League Certified Umpire, 2002-2004 Davis Little League Scorekeeper, 2002 Davis Visioning Group member Petitioner for Writ of Mandate under the California Environmental Quality Act against City of Woodland decision to approve the Spring Lake Specific Plan, 2002 Served on campaign committees for City Council candidates ATTACHMENT D Via E-mail July 11, 2022 Monique Guerrero, Commissioner, Ward 1 Amelia S. Lopez, Commissioner, Ward 2 Elizabeth Sanchez, Commissioner, Ward 3 Larry Quiel, Commissioner, Ward 4 Jesus F. Flores, Commissioner, Ward 5 Dolores Armstead, Commissioner, Ward 6 Ronnie E. Lewis III, Commissioner, Ward 7 Harmoni Morales, Commissioner, Mayor’s Appointee Planning Commission City of San Bernardino 201 N. E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 CEDPublicComment@sbcity.org Travis Martin Community & Economic Development Department City of San Bernardino 201 N. E Street, 3rd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401 Martin_tr@sbcity.org Re: Comment on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project Planning Commission Hearing, July 12, 2022 Dear Commissioners Guerrero, Lopez, Sanchez, Quiel, Flores, Armstead, Lewis III, and Morales, and Mr. Martin, I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project, including all actions related or referring to the proposed demolition of two onsite warehouse distribution buildings, and construction of a single new distribution warehouse totaling approximately 89,475 square feet located at 791 South Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino (“Project”). After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of San Bernardino (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 2 of 12 SAFER previously submitted comments to the City regarding the Project on April 28, 2022. SAFER incorporates those comments herein by reference. This comment has been prepared with the assistance of environmental consulting firm Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) and noise and vibration expert Deborah Jue of the firm Wilson Ihrig. SWAPE’s and Ms. Jue’s comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A and B hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. I. LEGAL STANDARD As the Supreme Court held, “If no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (ConocoPhillips) (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319-320, citing, No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d at pp. 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 491, 504–505. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Environment v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, 109. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1214; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th 927. An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d) (emphasis added); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 3 of 12 environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego, 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440 (1989). CEQA contains a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927 (emphasis in original). II. DISCUSSION A. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project Will Have Significant Adverse Impacts Regarding Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Air Quality, Health Risks and Greenhouse Gases. Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risks and greenhouse gases. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit A and their comments are briefly summarized here. 1. The MND Failed to Adequately Disclose the Project’s Potential Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts. It is well-established that CEQA requires analysis of toxic soil contamination that may be disturbed by a Project, and that the effects of this disturbance on human health and the environment must be analyzed. CEQA requires a finding that a project has a “significant effect on the environment” if “the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” PRC §21083(b)(3). As the Court of Appeal has stated, “[a] new project located in an area that will expose its occupants to preexisting dangerous pollutants can be said to have substantial adverse effect on human beings.” California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1078. The existence of toxic soil contamination at a project site is a significant impact requiring review and mitigation in the EIR. (McQueen v. Bd. of Dirs. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1149; Assoc. For A Cleaner Env't v. Yosemite Comm. College Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 629.) Here, the MND violates CEQA because it failed to prepare a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment (“ESA”), and therefore the potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts onsite was not adequately evaluated. Ex. A, p. 1. SWAPE states that the preparation of a Phase 1 ESA is common practice in CEQA matters in order to aid in the City’s determination of whether there are conditions on or near the project site which are indicative of hazardous substances. Id. at 2. The Phase 1 ESA includes such actions as reviewing known sites in the vicinity of the project which are undergoing assessment or cleanup activities, an inspection, and interviews with people knowledgeable about the property. Id. July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 4 of 12 An EIR must be prepared for the Project which includes a Phase 1 ESA in order to adequately assess any potential hazards or hazardous materials onsite. Without this additional investigation, the MND is inadequate and cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s potential impacts. 2. The MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Air Quality Impacts. SWAPE found that the MND incorrectly estimated the Project’s construction and operational emissions and therefore cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s impacts on local and regional air quality. The MND relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Version CalEEMod 2020.4.0 (“CalEEMod”). MND, p. 34. This model, which is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions, relies on recommended default values based on site specific information related to a number of factors. Ex. A at 2-3. CEQA requires any changes to the default values to be justified by substantial evidence. Id. SWAPE reviewed the MND’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the MND. Ex. A at 3. As a result, the MND’s air quality analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions. Specifically, SWAPE found that the following values used in the MND’s air quality analysis were either inconsistent with information provided in the MND or otherwise unjustified: 1. Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses. Ex. A, p. 3. 2. Unsubstantiated Operational Off-Road Equipment Input Parameters. Ex. A, p. 3-5. 3. Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure. Ex. A, p. 5-6. As a result of these errors in the MND, the Project’s construction and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts. 3. The Project Would Have a Disproportionate Health Risk Impact on Surrounding Communities. Next, SWAPE determined in its review that the Project would result in “disproportionate health risk impacts on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site.” Ex. A at 6. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) has found that “[t]hose living within a half July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 5 of 12 mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.” Id., quoting “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9. Other expert reports from Metro Freight Center of Excellence and the University of Redlands have made similar findings, concluding that neighborhoods of color and which are lower- income are more likely to contain warehouse facilities. Id. With regard to the City of San Bernardino in particular, SWAPE found that the City has “long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden compared to the rest of California.” Id. at 7. SWAPE consulted the California Environmental Protection Agency’s CalEnviroScreen screening tool, which ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability. Id. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, the Project site is in the 97th percentile of the most polluted census tracts in the State. Id. SWAPE also consulted SCAQMD’s Data Visualization Tool for Mates V and found that the City exhibits a heightened residential carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics. Id. at 8. SWAPE therefore concludes that development of the Project would “disproportionately contribute to and exacerbate the health conditions of residents in San Bernardino.” Id. As for San Bernardino County more generally, the Los Angeles Times reported that the County had “130 bad air days for ozone pollution in 2020, violating federal health standards on nearly every summer day.” Id. at 8, quoting “Southern California warehouse boon a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back.” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air- quality-officials-targetwarehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution. This is due in large part to ground-level ozone, which is the main component of smog and which the U.S. EPA states can aggravate lung diseases and increase the frequency of asthma attacks, particularly in children. Ex. A at 8. Similarly, the California Air Resources Board has found that children are at greater risk from inhaled pollutants due to factors including tendency to play on the ground with dirt which contains toxicants, and children’s less-developed natural biological defenses. Id. at 9. The MND for the proposed Project states that the nearest sensitive receptors include a single-family home as near as 85 feet to the project site and multi-family homes as near as 115 feet to the north and 135 feet to the south of the project site. Id. at 9-10; MND, p. 39. Additionally, the MND states that Monterey Elementary School is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Project site. Ex. A at 10; MND at 63. SWAPE concludes that this poses a significant threat due to children’s vulnerability to air pollution impacts. Ex. A at 10. SWAPE states: “the Project would have detrimental short-term and long-term health impacts on local residents and children if approved.” Id. These findings represent substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project would have disproportionate and significant air quality impacts on local residents and July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 6 of 12 children in the Project vicinity. The City must analyze this impact as part of its assessment of whether the Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. See, CEQA Appendix G. Further, SWAPE states that a Health Risk Assessment (“HRA”) should be prepared to assess the cumulative air quality impacts from the “several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site.” Id. at 10. An EIR must be prepared in order to adequately assess and mitigate these impacts. 4. The MND Failed to Adequately Evaluate Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions from the Project. One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.1 The MND concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk assessment (“HRA”). Ex. A at 10. The MND’s conclusion about health risks was based on its finding that the Project’s limited heavy-duty construction equipment, distance to nearby sensitive receptors, short-term construction schedule, and adherence to State off-road equipment regulations would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. MND, p. 40-41. Additionally, the MND concluded that the impacts would be less-than-significant because the proposed Project would not exceed 100 truck deliveries per day, and would therefore not result in substantial diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions. MND, p. 41-42. SWAPE identifies four main reasons for why the MND’s evaluation of health risk impacts and subsequent less-than-significant conclusion is incorrect. First, the MND states that according to guidance from the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), the Project is exempt from preparation of an HRA due to not generating more than 100 truck deliveries per day. Ex. A at 11. However, SWAPE states that this is incorrect because the CAPCOA guideline which the City relies upon has to do with preparation of an HRA for a new receptor, not a new 1 See CARB Resources - Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.). July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 7 of 12 source. Id. As the Project site is a source of pollution rather than a receptor, the guidance does not apply and the conclusion that the Project is exempt from preparation of an HRA cannot be relied upon. Id. at 11-12. Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction-related and operational HRA, the Project failed to substantively connect the Project’s air-quality impacts to likely health consequences as required by CEQA. Ex. A at 12. Construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through exhaust stacks of construction equipment for approximately 14 months. Id. The Project is also expected to generate daily vehicle trips which would produce additional exhaust emissions and expose nearby sensitive receptors to DPM emissions. Id. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Id.; See Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510. Third, the California Department of Justice recommends the preparation of a quantitative HRA for warehouse projects pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines. OEHHA released its most recent guidance document in 2015 describing which types of projects warrant preparation of an HRA. See “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidance manual.pdf. The OEHHA document recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks. Ex. A at 12. Additionally, if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project. Id. The Project’s anticipated construction exceeds both the 2-month and 6-month requirements and should therefore be evaluated for the entire 14-month construction period. Id. at 12-13. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk of the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (“MEIR”). Id. Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that the Project be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration. Id. An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. Fourth, by failing to complete a quantified constructional or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the MND also fails to compare the Project’s excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Id. at 13. This assessment should be completed and the results compared to the relevant threshold. SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction using AERSCREEN, a screening-level air quality dispersion model. July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 8 of 12 Ex. A at 13-18. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 75 meters and analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id. SWAPE found that the excess cancer risk at a sensitive receptor located approximately 75 meters away over the course of Project construction and operation is approximately 70.1 in one million for infants and 13.6 in one million for children. Id. at 17. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of Project construction and operation of 30 years is approximately 91.1 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million. SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. SWAPE recommends that “an EIR [] be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.” Ex. A, p. 17-18. 5. The MND Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 470.54 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (“MT CO2e/year”). MND, p. 59-60, Table 9. However, SWAPE states that the MND’s conclusion about a less-than- significant greenhouse gas impact is incorrect for three reasons: (1) The MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; and (3) The MND fails to identify a potentially significant GHG impact. Ex. A at 18-20. SWAPE’s analysis demonstrates potentially significant air quality, health risk and GHG impacts from the project that necessitate mitigation. An EIR should be prepared which includes an updated air quality, health risk and GHG analysis and which proposes feasible measures to mitigate any significant impacts. B. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May Have Adverse Noise Impacts that the MND Failed to Address. Deborah Jue, Principal of Acoustics, Noise, and Vibration consulting firm Wilson Ihrig, reviewed the MND for the Project and found that the MND relies on incorrect thresholds of significance to measure the Project’s potential noise impacts. Ms. Jue’s July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 9 of 12 comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit B and her comments are summarized here. 1. The MND’s baseline noise environment is not properly established. According to CEQA Guidelines, EIRs and MNDs must identify and describe “the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published.” (14 CCR § 15125(a).) This information is critical to the CEQA document’s impact analysis because it serves as the baseline against which a project’s predicted effects can be described and quantified. (14 CCR § 15125(a); Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 447 (Smart Rail).) Courts have repeatedly held that where an EIR contains an “inadequate description of the environmental setting for the project, a proper analysis of project impacts [i]s impossible.” (Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1122 [invalidating EIR with only passing references to surrounding viticulture]; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859, 873-75.) The MND failed to provide information as to the existing noise environment of the Project site, therefore failing to provide an adequate baseline by which to measure the Project’s noise impacts. Although the MND states that Project noise levels would increase, the only paragraph in the MND which discusses the noise environment “provides no site-specific data to establish the noise impact assessment, and no discussion is provided to set the context for whether the existing noise environment is compatible with the existing land use.” Ex. B, p. 1. Ms. Jue notes that the City’s Noise Element includes information on future noise contours along major roadways, but does not clarify the target year by which these contours will be reached. Ex. B at 1; see also San Bernardino General Plan (“SB GP”), p.14-17. The Noise Element also lacks information on noise data from the nearby San Bernardino International Airport (SBIA). Ex. B at 1-2; SB GP at 14-13. The end of the SBIA runways lie only 1.3 miles from the Project site, making it likely that the SBIA’s noise would impact the Project site’s noise environment. Ex. B at 2. Further, the General Plan shows that the Project site falls within the Airport Influence Area. SB GP, Figure LU-4, p. 2-47. The MND must be revised to include sufficient information regarding the existing noise environment to measure the Project’s impacts against existing conditions, as required under CEQA. An EIR should be prepared which includes this information and appropriate mitigation. July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 10 of 12 2. The MND fails to consider numerous policies from the City’s Noise Element which are applicable to the Project, and its thresholds of significance are therefore not properly developed. Ms. Jue next points out that there are numerous policies in the City’s Noise Element which apply to the Project but which the MND failed to include. Ex. B at 2. These include policies which serve to protect noise levels at sensitive land uses such as residential areas and schools, both of are present near the Project site. Id. The CEQA Appendix G standard for measuring noise impacts requires that a lead agency assess whether the project would “generat[e] [] a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.” CEQA Appendix G (emphasis added). The CEQA Guidelines explicitly require an assessment of whether noise impacts exceed standards from the City’s General Plan, and the MND is therefore incomplete without this information. An EIR must be prepared to assess how the Project’s noise impacts measure against applicable Noise Element policies. 3. The MND’s impact analyses with regard to sensitive receptors, construction noise impacts, and operational noise impacts are incomplete. The MND provides inadequate or incomplete information regarding the Project’s potential noise impacts with regard to three key areas: sensitive receptors, construction noise, and operational noise. Ex. B at 3-4. First, with regard to sensitive receptors, the MND’s analysis fails to account for several noise sensitive uses, including but not limited to: (1) homes to the north of the Project site, (2) homes south of East Central Avenue, and (3) the church near the southeast corner of South Waterman Avenue and East Central Avenue. Id. at 3. Additionally, the MND does not provide any information about the truck routes which will be used to service the Project, therefore sensitive receptors which may be impacted by the Project’s off-site activities cannot be identified. Id. These omissions render the MND’s noise impacts analysis incomplete, and an EIR must be prepared which includes this information and properly assesses impacts on all sensitive receptors. Second, the MND’s assessment of construction noise impacts is incomplete. Ex. B at 3. The construction noise analysis assesses impacts to only one residence to the East of the Project, failing to give information as to the other nearby uses such as the apartments to the North of the site, and other residential uses to the South of the site. Id., see also MND Section 2.2: “Project Site Location,” p. 9. The MND section on construction noise impacts also states that the Project site has high ambient noise levels because it is adjacent to the I-10 freeway and Waterman and Central Avenues. Ex. B at 3; MND p. 74. This conclusion regarding high ambient noise levels is July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 11 of 12 unsupported by any evidence or noise measurements in the MND. Ex. B at 3. Further, Ms. Jue points out that the I-10 is located 3 miles from the Project, a distance which she would not consider “adjacent.” Id. With regard to impacts from construction equipment, the MND provides a table which presents noise levels from individual pieces of equipment. MND, Table 10, p. 74- 75. The table includes a column showing the typical noise level of the pieces of equipment at a distance of 1,000 feet, a measurement which Ms. Jue states has no relevance to the Project. Ex. B at 3. Additionally, although the MND claims that “[a]ll construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously at a construction area nearest to sensitive receptors,” there are no calculations demonstrating that construction equipment noise impacts have been combined, and the MND therefore lacks basis for this statement. Id.; see MND, p. 75. The MND also states that the City prohibits nighttime operations of certain types of construction equipment “except with the approval of the City.” MND, p. 73. Ms. Jue states that given the proximity of sensitive noise uses, the MND must clarify whether the City will grant such approval. Ex B at 3. Lastly, the MND completely omits any discussion of operational impacts of the Project, which represents a gaping hole in the noise impacts analysis. It is unclear from the MND whether refrigeration would be provided. Ex. B at 3-4. If the Project does include refrigeration, those units could potentially operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which may violate the City’s Noise Ordinance. Id. at 4. Additionally, the warehouse, office, and wholesale components of the Project would presumably require air conditioning. Although the building’s hours of operation begin at 7 am, during winter months, it may be necessary for units to run beginning at 6 am in order to provide a tempered space by 7 am. Id. In Ms. Jue’s experience, this may require mechanical units on the rooftop which have the potential to exceed noise level thresholds. Id. Finally, the Project is anticipated to generate 44 truck trips, which would add up to 88 trucks on roads adjacent to the Project. Id. These trips could impact noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. Id. The inadequacies pointed out by Ms. Jue render the MND’s noise impact analysis incomplete and preclude the public from understanding the Project’s potential impacts. The City therefore lacks substantial evidence to conclude that Project construction and operation will not result in a significant noise impact. An EIR must be prepared to adequately assess these impacts. July 11, 2022 Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration Amazing 34 Distribution Center Page 12 of 12 II. CONCLUSION In light of the above comments, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Amalia Bowley Fuentes LOZEAU DRURY LLP EXHIBIT A 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com June 9, 2022 Amalia Bowley Fuentes Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94618 Subject: Comments on the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project Dear Ms. Fuentes, We have reviewed the April 2022 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Amazing 34 Distribution Center Project (“Project”) located in the City of San Bernardino (“City”). The Project proposes to demolish an existing 47,521-square-foot (“SF”) industrial building, and construct an 89,475-SF warehouse including 4,560-SF of office space, as well as a 67,390-SF parking lot, on the 3.8- acre site. Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project’s hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project are underestimated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas impacts that the project may have on the environment. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Inadequate Disclosure and Analysis of Impacts A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) was not prepared in support of the IS/MND and therefore the potential for hazards and hazardous materials impacts was inadequately evaluated. An EIR that includes a Phase I ESA is necessary to determine if conditions exist at the Project site which may be significant and require mitigation. The preparation of a Phase I ESA is a common practice in CEQA matters to aid in the disclosure of hazardous materials impacts that may pose a risk to the public, workers, or the environment, and which 2 may require further investigation through the conduct of a Phase II ESA. Standards for performing a Phase I ESA have been established by the US EPA and the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards (“ASTM”).1 Phase I ESAs are conducted to identify conditions indicative of releases of hazardous substances and include: • a review of all known sites in the vicinity of the subject property that are on regulatory agency databases undergoing assessment or cleanup activities; • an inspection; • interviews with people knowledgeable about the property; and • recommendations for further actions to address potential hazards. Phase I ESAs conclude with the identification of any “recognized environmental conditions” (“RECs”) and recommendations to address such conditions. A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. If RECs are identified, then a Phase II ESA generally follows, which includes the collection of soil, soil vapor and groundwater samples, as necessary, to identify the extent of contamination and the need for cleanup to reduce exposure potential to the public. To provide for adequate disclosure of hazards and hazardous materials impacts, a Phase I ESA is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to evaluate the potential for RECs at the Project site. If a REC is identified, a Phase II should be conducted to sample for potential contaminants in soil, including petroleum compounds. Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxics Substances Control recommended screening levels 2, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxics Substances Control. Air Quality Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Used to Estimate Project Emissions The air quality analysis provided in the IS/MND relies on emissions calculated with California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) Version 2020.4.0 (p. 34).3 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what 1 http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1527.htm 2 https://dtsc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2022/02/HHRA-Note-3-June-2020-Revised-A.pdf 3 “CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model. 3 parameters are utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant emissions and make known which default values are changed as well as provide justification for the values selected. When reviewing the Project’s CalEEMod output files, provided in the Air Quality/ Greenhouse Gas Data/ Health Risk Assessment (“AQ, GHG, & HRA Study”) as Appendix A to the IS/MND, we found that the following model inputs are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the Project’s construction and operational emissions are underestimated. An EIR should be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis that adequately evaluates the impacts that construction and operation of the Project will have on local and regional air quality. Failure to Model All Proposed Land Uses According to the IS/MND: “The project site is 3.84 acres and will consist approximately of a 77,562 sf warehouse (high pile storage), 7,353 sf warehouse mezzanine, 2,280 sf first floor (wholesale), and 2,280 sf 2nd floor office” (p. 11). As such, the model should have included 4,560-SF of office space 4. However, review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Amazing 34 Warehouse” model includes all 89,475-SF as “Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail” (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 169, 197, 226). As you can see in the excerpt above, the models fail to distinguish between the proposed warehouse and office space. This inconsistency presents an issue, as CalEEMod includes 63 different land use types that are each assigned a distinctive set of energy usage emission factors.5 Thus, by failing to include all proposed land use types, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Unsubstantiated Operational Off-Road Equipment Input Parameters Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Amazing 34 Warehouse” model includes several changes to the default operational off-road equipment input parameters (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 171, 199, 228). 4 Calculated: 2,280-SF first floor + 2,280-SF 2nd floor = 4,560-SF total office space. 5 “Appendix D – Default Data Tables” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), June 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. D-305. 4 As a result, the model includes 1 compressed natural gas (“CNG”) forklift that would operate for 5 hours per day (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 196, 224, 258). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 6 According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for the inclusion of operational off-road equipment is: “1 forklift 5 hours per day. Per PDF 1, analyzed as CNG fuel” (Appendix A, pp. 169, 197, 226). Furthermore, the AQ, GHG, & HRA Study incorporates Project Design Feature (“PDF”) 1, which states: “Project Design Feature 1: All off-road equipment (non-street legal), such as forklifts and street sweepers, used onsite for warehouse operations shall be powered by alternative fuels, electrical batteries or other alternative/non-diesel fuels (e.g., propane or compressed natural gas (CNG)) that do not emit diesel particulate matter, and that are low or zero emission” (p. 3). However, these changes remain unsubstantiated for two reasons. First, while the AQ, GHG, & HRA Study incorporates PDF-1, the IS/MND fails to include the feature as a formal mitigation measure. This is incorrect, as according to the Association of Environmental Professionals’ (“AEP”) CEQA Portal Topic Paper on Mitigation Measures: “While not ‘mitigation’, a good practice is to include those project design feature(s) that address environmental impacts in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP). Often the MMRP is all that accompanies building and construction plans through the permit process. If the design features are not listed as important to addressing an environmental impact, it is easy for someone not involved in the original environmental process to approve a change to the project that could eliminate one or more of the design features without understanding the resulting environmental impact.”7 As demonstrated above, design features that are not formally included as mitigation measures may be eliminated from the Project’s design altogether. Thus, as PDF-1 is not formally included as a mitigation measure in the IS/MND, we cannot guarantee that the use of non-diesel fuel would be implemented, monitored, and enforced on the Project site. Second, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the reduction to the daily hours of operation whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the forklift would operate for only 5 hours a day. 6 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 7 “CEQA Portal Topic Paper Mitigation Measures.” AEP, February 2020, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Mitigation%202020.pdf, p. 6. 5 These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses operational off-road equipment to calculate the emissions associated with the Project’s area-source operational emissions. 8 Thus, by including unsubstantiated input parameters for the Project’s operational off-road equipment, the model may underestimate the Project’s area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Incorrect Application of Energy-Related Operational Mitigation Measure Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Inspiration Drive Memory Care and Assisted Living Facility Project” model includes the following energy-related operational mitigation measures (see excerpt below) (Appendix A, pp. 192, 220, 250): As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User’s Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for the inclusion of the energy-related operational mitigation measure is: “7% improvement to Title 24 and 30% Lighting Energy Reduction selected to account for 2019 Title 24 Improvements” (Appendix A, pp. 169, 197, 226). Furthermore, the IS/MND states: “According to 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions, prepared by the California Energy Commission, March 2018, the 2019 Title 24, Part 6 building energy efficiency standards that went into effect January 1, 2020 result in 7 percent more efficient building energy efficiency than the 2016 Title 24 standards and require new lighting energy improvements that are 30 percent more efficient than the prior 2016 building standards. In order to account for the new standards, the CalEEMod “mitigation” of exceed Title 24 by 7 percent and provide a 30 percent lighting energy improvement was selected” (p. 49). However, the inclusion of the above-mentioned energy-related operational mitigation measure is incorrect, as the Project was modeled in CalEEMod Version.2020.4.0, which incorporates the more efficient 2019 Title 24 standards. According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide: 8 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 42. 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 1, 14. 6 “CalEEMod 2020.4.0 has the capability of calculating building energy use incorporating […] the 2005, 2008, 2013, 2016 and 2019 Title 24 standards.”10 Thus, as the IS/MND does not require the Project to exceed 2019 Title 24 Standards, this measure is not applicable to the proposed Project. By incorrectly including an energy-related operational mitigation measure, the model underestimates the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Disproportionate Health Risk Impacts of Warehouses on Surrounding Communities Upon review of the IS/MND, we have determined that the development of the proposed Project would result in disproportionate health risk impacts on community members living, working, and going to school within the immediate area of the Project site. According to the SCAQMD: “Those living within a half mile of warehouses are more likely to include communities of color, have health impacts such as higher rates of asthma and heart attacks, and a greater environmental burden.”11 In particular, the SCAQMD found that more than 2.4 million people live within a half mile radius of at least one warehouse, and that those areas not only experience increased rates of asthma and heart attacks, but are also disproportionately Black and Latino communities below the poverty line.12 Another study similarly indicates that “neighborhoods with lower household income levels and higher percentages of minorities are expected to have higher probabilities of containing warehousing facilities.”13 Additionally, a report authored by the Inland Empire-based People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands states: “As the warehouse and logistics industry continues to grow and net exponential profits at record rates, more warehouse projects are being approved and constructed in low-income communities of color and serving as a massive source of pollution by attracting thousands of polluting truck trips daily. Diesel trucks emit dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide and particulate matter that cause devastating health impacts including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, and premature death. As a result, physicians consider these pollution- burdened areas ‘diesel death zones.”14 10 “Appendix A - Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 35. 11 “South Coast AQMD Governing Board Adopts Warehouse Indirect Source Rule.” SCAQMD, May 2021, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/news-archive/2021/board-adopts-waisr-may7-2021.pdf?sfvrsn=9. 12 “Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back.” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-target- warehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution. 13 “Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Evidence from four metros in California.” Metro Freight Center of Excellence, January 2018, available at: https://www.metrans.org/assets/research/MF%201.1g_Location%20of%20warehouses%20and%20environmental %20justice_Final%20Report_021618.pdf, p. 21. 14 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts 7 It is evident that the continued development of industrial warehouses within these communities poses a significant environmental justice challenge. However, the acceleration of warehouse development is only increasing despite the consequences on public health. The Inland Empire alone is adding 10 to 25 million SF of new industrial space each year.15 San Bernardino, the setting of the proposed Project, has long borne a disproportionately high pollution burden compared to the rest of California. When using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA’s screening tool that ranks each census tract in the State for pollution and socioeconomic vulnerability, we found that the Project’s census tract is in the 97th percentile of most polluted census tracts in the State (see excerpt below).16 on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4. 15 “2020 North America Industrial Big Box Review & Outlook.” CBRE, 2020, available at: https://www.cbre.com/- /media/project/cbre/shared-site/insights/local-responses/industrial-big-box-report-inland-empire/local-response- 2020-ibb-inland-empire-overview.pdf, p. 2. 16 “CalEnviroScreen 4.0.” California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), October 2021, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40. 8 Furthermore, the Data Visualization Tool for Mates V, a monitoring and evaluation study conducted by SCAQMD, demonstrates that the City already exhibits a heightened residential carcinogenic risk from exposure to air toxics (see excerpt below).17 Therefore, development of the proposed warehouse would disproportionately contribute to and exacerbate the health conditions of the residents in San Bernardino. The Los Angeles Times reported that San Bernardino County had 130 bad air days for ozone pollution in 2020, violating federal health standards on nearly every summer day.18 Downtown Los Angeles, by comparison, had 22 ozone violation days in 2020. This year, the County continues to face the worst ozone pollution, as it has seen the highest recorded Air Quality Index (“AQI”) values for ground-level ozone in California.19 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) indicates that ozone, the main ingredient in “smog,” can cause several health problems, which includes aggravating lung diseases and increasing the frequency of asthma attacks. The U.S. EPA states: “Children are at greatest risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, which increases their exposure. Children are also more likely than adults to have asthma.”20 17 “Residential Air Toxics Cancer Risk Calculated from Model Data in Grid Cells.” MATES V, 2018, available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23/page/Main-Page/?views=Click- tabs-for-other-data%2CGridded-Cancer-Risk; see also: “MATES V Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study.” SCAQMD, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/air-quality-studies/health-studies/mates-v. 18 “Southern California warehouse boom a huge source of pollution. Regulators are fighting back.” Los Angeles Times, May 2021, available at: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-05/air-quality-officials-target- warehouses-bid-to-curb-health-damaging-truck-pollution. 19 “High Ozone Days.” American Lung Association, 2022, available at: https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/california. 20 “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” U.S. EPA, May 2021, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone- pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. 9 Furthermore, regarding the increased sensitivity of early-life exposures to inhaled pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) states: “Children are often at greater risk from inhaled pollutants, due to the following reasons: • Children have unique activity patterns and behavior. For example, they crawl and play on the ground, amidst dirt and dust that may carry a wide variety of toxicants. They often put their hands, toys, and other items into their mouths, ingesting harmful substances. Compared to adults, children typically spend more time outdoors and are more physically active. Time outdoors coupled with faster breathing during exercise increases children’s relative exposure to air pollution. • Children are physiologically unique. Relative to body size, children eat, breathe, and drink more than adults, and their natural biological defenses are less developed. The protective barrier surrounding the brain is not fully developed, and children’s nasal passages aren’t as effective at filtering out pollutants. Developing lungs, immune, and metabolic systems are also at risk. • Children are particularly susceptible during development. Environmental exposures during fetal development, the first few years of life, and puberty have the greatest potential to influence later growth and development.”21 A Stanford-led study also reveals that children exposed to high levels of air pollution are more susceptible to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases in adulthood.22 Thus, given children’s higher propensity to succumb to the negative health impacts of air pollutants, and as warehouses release more smog-forming pollution than any other sector, it is necessary to evaluate the specific health risk that warehouses pose to children in the nearby community. According to the above-mentioned study by the People’s Collective for Environmental Justice and University of Redlands, there are 640 schools in the South Coast Air Basin that are located within half a mile of a large warehouse, most of them in socio-economically disadvantaged areas.23 Regarding the proposed Project itself, the IS/MND states: “The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is a single-family home located as near as 85 feet to the east of the project site. There are also multi-family homes located as near as 115 feet 21 “Children and Air Pollution.” California Air Resources Board (CARB), available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/children-and-air-pollution. 22 “Air pollution puts children at higher risk of disease in adulthood, according to Stanford researchers and others.” Stanford, February 2021, available at: https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/22/air-pollution-impacts-childrens- health/. 23 “Warehouses, Pollution, and Social Disparities: An analytical view of the logistics industry’s impacts on environmental justice communities across Southern California.” People’s Collective for Environmental Justice, April 2021, available at: https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/warehouse_research_report_4.15.2021.pdf, p. 4. 10 to the north of the project site and a single-family home located as near as 135 feet to the south of the project site” (p. 39). Furthermore, the IS/MND indicates that Monterey Elementary School is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast (p. 63). This poses a significant threat because, as outlined above, children are a vulnerable population that are more susceptible to the damaging side effects of air pollution. As such, the Project would have detrimental short-term and long-term health impacts on local residents and children if approved. An EIR should be prepared to evaluate the disproportionate impacts of the proposed warehouse on the community adjacent to the Project, including an analysis of the impact on children and people of color who live and attend school in the surrounding area. Finally, in order to evaluate the cumulative air quality impact from the several warehouse projects proposed or built in a one-mile radius of the Project site, the EIR should prepare a cumulative health risk assessment (“HRA”) to quantify the adverse health outcome from the effects of exposure to multiple warehouses in the immediate area in conjunction with the poor ambient air quality in the Project’s census tract. Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project construction, the IS/MND states: “Given the relatively limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, the varying distances that construction equipment would operate to the nearby sensitive receptors, and the short-term construction schedule, the proposed project would not result in a long-term (i.e., 30 or 70 years) substantial source of toxic air contaminant emissions and corresponding individual cancer risk. In addition, California Code of Regulations Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449 regulates emissions from off-road diesel equipment in California. This regulation limits idling of equipment to no more than five minutes, requires equipment operators to label each piece of equipment and provide annual reports to CARB of their fleet’s usage and emissions. This regulation also requires systematic upgrading of the emission Tier level of each fleet, and currently no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 0 or Tier 1 equipment and by January 2023 no commercial operator is allowed to purchase Tier 2 equipment. In addition to the purchase restrictions, equipment operators need to meet fleet average emissions targets that become more stringent each year between years 2014 and 2023. By January 2022, 50 percent or more of all contractors’ equipment fleets must be Tier 2 or higher. Therefore, due to the limited duration of construction, distances to the nearby sensitive receptors, and through adherence to State off-road equipment regulations, a less than significant short-term toxic air contaminant impacts would occur during construction of the proposed project. As such, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations” (p. 40-41). 11 As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant construction-related health risk impact because the limited number of heavy-duty construction equipment, distance to nearby sensitive receptors, short-term construction schedule, and adherence to State off-road equipment regulations would not result in substantial toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions. Furthermore, regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project operation, the IS/MND states: “According to Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Project, prepared by CAPCOA, July 2009, recommends that if sensitive receptors are placed within 1,000 feet of distribution centers that generate more than 100 trucks deliveries per day or more than 40 trucks deliveries per day with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) a quantitative Health Risk Assessment (HRA) should be prepared to calculate the health risks. According to the VMT Memo (Urban Crossroads, 2021), the proposed project would generate a net total of 20 daily truck trips, since a trip is generated when a truck either arrives at the project site or leaves the project site, the 20 daily truck trips equates to 10 truck deliveries per day, which is well below the CAPCOA guidelines provided above for preparation of a quantitative HRA. Since the proposed project would generate less truck deliveries than CAPCOA recommends for the preparation of a quantitative HRA, it can be reasonably concluded that the DPM emissions created from the on-going operation of the proposed project would result in a less than significant TAC impact to the nearby sensitive receptors and no mitigation would be required” (p. 41-42). As demonstrated above, the IS/MND concludes that the Project would result in a less-than-significant operational health risk impact because the proposed Project would not exceed 100 truck deliveries per day which would not would not result in substantial diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions. However, the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for four reasons. First, the IS/MND states that the Project is exempt from the preparation of an HRA according to CAPCOA, as the proposed warehouse will not generate more than 100 truck deliveries per day. This is incorrect, as the above-referenced CAPCOA guidance is in reference to the recommended preparation of an HRA for the development of a new receptor, not for a new source. Specifically, CAPCOA states: “Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week).”24 As demonstrated above, the correct use of this guidance would be for new residential developments within 1,000-feet of an existing distribution center. As such, the IS/MND’s conclusion that the Project is 24“Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf, p. 9, Table 2. 12 exempt from the preparation of an HRA is based on an incorrect interpretation of CAPCOA guidance and should not be relied upon. Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”25 This poses a problem, as according to the AQ, GHG, & HRA Study, construction of the Project would produce DPM emissions through the exhaust stacks of construction equipment over a duration of approximately 14 months (p. 36). Furthermore, operation of the Project is expected to generate daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions. However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to evaluate the TAC emissions associated with Project construction and operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Thus, without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project’s TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate Project-generated emissions with potential adverse impacts on human health. Third, the State of California Department of Justice recommends that warehouse projects prepare a quantitative HRA pursuant to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”), the organization responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, as well as local air district guidelines.26 OEHHA released its most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments in February 2015, as referenced by the AQ, GHG, & HRA Study (p. 52). This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA. Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.27 Furthermore, according to OEHHA: “Exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project. In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs (OEHHA, 2009).”28 Thus, as the Project’s anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA, construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 30-month construction period. Furthermore, OEHHA recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to 25 “Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.” Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at: https://ceqaportal.org/decisions/1907/Sierra%20Club%20v.%20County%20of%20Fresno.pdf. 26 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice, available at: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf, p. 6. 27 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 28 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 13 estimate the individual cancer risk at the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”).29 While the IS/MND fails to provide the expected lifetime of the proposed Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project would operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, operation of the Project also exceeds the 2-month and 6-month requirements set forth by OEHHA and should be evaluated for the entire 30-year residential exposure duration, as indicated by OEHHA guidance. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions. Fourth, by claiming a less-than-significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, the IS/MND fails to compare the Project’s excess cancer risk to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million.30 Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation should be conducted. Screening-Level Analysis Demonstrates Significant Impacts In order to conduct our screening-level risk assessment we relied upon AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.31 The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated (“CAPCOA”) guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk screening assessments (“HRSAs”).32, 33 A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project. We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project’s construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM10 exhaust estimates from the IS/MND’s CalEEMod output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of life.34 The IS/MND’s CalEEMod model indicates that construction activities will generate approximately 176 pounds of DPM over the 416-day construction period.35 The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum 29 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 2-4. 30 “South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.” SCAQMD, April 2019, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 31 “AERSCREEN Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model,” U.S. EPA, April 2011, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/20110411_AERSCREEN_Release_Memo.pdf 32 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 33 “Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects.” CAPCOA, July 2009, available at: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA_HRA_LU_Guidelines_8-6-09.pdf. 34 “Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-18. 35 See Attachment A for health risk calculations. 14 downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 175.5 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸416 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸 =𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00221 grams per second (“g/s”). Subtracting the 416-day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project’s operational DPM for an additional 28.86 years. The IS/MND’s operational CalEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 13 net pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. Applying the same equation used to estimate the construction DPM rate, we estimated the following emission rate for Project operation: 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 �𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠�= 13.3 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 365 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑𝐸𝐸 × 453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝐸𝐸 × 1 𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑑𝑑24 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔𝐸𝐸 × 1 ℎ𝐸𝐸𝑜𝑜𝑔𝑔3,600 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝐸𝐸=𝟎𝟎.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒈𝒈/𝒔𝒔 Using this equation, we estimated an operational emission rate of 0.000192 g/s. Construction and operation were simulated as a 3.8-acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 175- by 88-meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release. An urban meteorological setting was selected with model-default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of San Bernardino was obtained from U.S. 2020 Census data.36 The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single-hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) suggests that the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplying the single-hour concentration by 10% in screening procedures.37 According to the IS/MND the nearest sensitive receptor is a single-family residence located 85 feet, or 26 meters from the Project site (p. 39). However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the MEIR is located approximately 75 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN for Project construction is approximately 4.328 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.4328 µg/m3 for Project construction at the MEIR. For Project operation, the single-hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEN is 0.3751 µg/m3 DPM at approximately 75 meters downwind. Multiplying this single-hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.03751 µg/m3 for Project operation at the MEIR. 36 “San Bernardino.” U.S. Census Bureau, 2020, available at: https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/0665000. 37 “Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised.” U.S. EPA, October 1992, available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/EPA-454R-92-019_OCR.pdf. 15 We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by OEHHA, as recommended by SCAQMD.38 Specifically, guidance from OEHHA and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high- point estimate (i.e. 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (“ASF”) in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) utilized for the various age groups in our screening-level HRA are as follows: Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk Age Group Breathing Rate (L/kg-day)39 Age Sensitivity Factor 40 Exposure Duration (years) Fraction of Time at Home 41 Exposure Frequency (days/year)42 Exposure Time (hours/day) 3rd Trimester 361 10 0.25 1 350 24 Infant (0 - 2) 1090 10 2 1 350 24 Child (2 - 16) 572 3 14 1 350 24 Adult (16 - 30) 261 1 14 0.73 350 24 For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor (“CPF”) in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day-1) to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm: 38 “AB 2588 and Rule 1402 Supplemental Guidelines.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk-assessment/ab-2588-supplemental- guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 2. 39 “Supplemental Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics ‘Hot Spots’ Information and Assessment Act.” SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/risk- assessment/ab-2588-supplemental-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=19, p. 19; see also “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. 40 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 8-5 Table 8.3. 41 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 42 “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, p. 5-24. 16 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑝𝑝= 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝× 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 × �𝐵𝐵𝑅𝑅𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵� × 𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (μg/m3) EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days) BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1) CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, μg to mg, L to m3) To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group: 𝐶𝐶𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝑠𝑠𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴= 𝐷𝐷𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸 × 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐹𝐹 × 𝐸𝐸𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 where: DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg/day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years) AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 416-day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.25 years), and the first 0.89 years of the infantile stage of life (0 – 2 years). The annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30-year exposure period, which makes up the latter 1.11 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child (2 – 16) and adult (16 – 30 years) stages of life. The results of our calculations are shown in the table below. 17 The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source Duration (years) Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk 3rd Trimester Construction 0.25 0.4328 5.89E-06 Construction 0.89 0.4328 6.32E-05 Operation 1.11 0.03751 6.84E-06 Infant (0 - 2) Total 2 7.01E-05 Child (2 - 16) Operation 14 0.03751 1.36E-05 Adult (16 - 30) Operation 14 0.03751 1.51E-06 Lifetime 30 9.11E-05 As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for the 3rd trimester of pregnancy, infants, children, and adults at the MEIR located approximately 75 meters away, over the course of Project construction and operation, are approximately 5.89, 70.1, 13.6, and 1.51 in one million, respectively. The excess cancer risk over the course of a residential lifetime (30 years) is approximately 91.1 in one million. The infant, child, and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the IS/MND. Our analysis represents a screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection. The purpose of the screening-level HRA is to demonstrate the potential link between Project-generated emissions and adverse health risk impacts. According to the U.S. EPA: “EPA’s Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments iteratively using a tiered approach to ‘strike a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefits associated with that additional refinement’ (U.S. EPA, 1992). In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) of the overall assessment (i.e., a screening-level assessment). The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening- level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models.” As demonstrated above, screening-level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach. Thus, as our screening-level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, an EIR should be prepared to include a refined 18 health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation. Greenhouse Gas Failure to Adequately Evaluate Greenhouse Gas Impacts The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 470.54 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO2e/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (see excerpt below) (p. 59-60, Table 9). However, the IS/MND’s analysis, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for three reasons. (1) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an outdated threshold; and (3) The IS/MND fails to identify a potentially significant GHG impact; 1) Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Quantitative Analysis of Emissions As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 470.54 MT CO2e/year (59-60, Table 9). However, the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis is unsubstantiated. As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ, GHG, & HRA Study as Appendix A to the IS/MND, we found that several of the values inputted into the model were not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND. As a result, the model underestimates the Project’s emissions, and the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis 19 should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential GHG impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on the surrounding environment. 2) Incorrect Reliance on an Outdated Quantitative GHG Threshold As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 470.54 MT CO2e/year, which would not exceed the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year (p. 59-60, Table 9). However, the guidance that provided the 3,000 MT CO2e/year threshold, the SCAQMD’s 2008 Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans report, was developed when the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as “AB 32”, was the governing statute for GHG reductions in California. AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. 43 Furthermore, AEP guidance states: “[F]or evaluating projects with a post 2020 horizon, the threshold will need to be revised based on a new gap analysis that would examine 17 development and reduction potentials out to the next GHG reduction milestone.” 44 As it is currently June 2022, thresholds for 2020 are not applicable to the proposed Project and should be revised to reflect the current GHG reduction target. As such, the SCAQMD bright-line threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year is outdated and inapplicable to the proposed Project, and the IS/MND’s less-than- significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. Instead, we recommend that the Project apply the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (“MT CO2e/SP/year”), which was calculated by applying a 40% reduction to the 2020 targets.45 3) Failure to Identify a Potentially Significant GHG Impact In an effort to quantitatively evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions, we compared the Project’s GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, to the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year.46 When applying this threshold, the Project’s incorrect and unsubstantiated air model indicates a potentially significant GHG impact. As previously stated, the IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual GHG emissions of 470.54 MT CO2e/year (p. 59-60, Table 9). Furthermore, according to CAPCOA’s CEQA & Climate Change report, service population (“SP”) is defined as “the sum of the number of residents and the 43 HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 38550, available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=38550. 44 “Beyond Newhall and 2020: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California.” Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), October 2016, available at: https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf, p. 39. 45 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 46 “Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.” SCAQMD, September 2010, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf, p. 2. 20 number of jobs supported by the project.”47 The IS/MND estimates that the Project would support 22 full-time employees (p. 12). As the Project does not include any resiendtial land uses, we estimate a SP of 22 people.48 When dividing the Project’s net annual GHG emissions, as estimated by the IS/MND, by a SP of 22 people, we find that the Project would emit approximately 21.4 MT CO2e/SP/year (see table below).49 IS/MND Greenhouse Gas Emissions Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 470.54 Service Population 22 Service Population Efficiency (MT CO2e/SP/year) 21.4 SCAQMD 2035 Target 3.0 Exceeds? Yes As demonstrated above, the Project’s service population efficiency value, as calculated using the IS/MND’s net annual GHG emissions and SP, exceeds the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target of 3.0 MT CO2e/SP/year, indicating a potentially significant impact not previously identified or addressed by the IS/MND. As a result, the IS/MND’s less-than-significant GHG impact conclusion should not be relied upon. An EIR should be prepared, including an updated GHG analysis and incorporating additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. Feasible Mitigation Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially significant health risk and GHG impacts that should be mitigated further. In an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.50 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made: • Requiring off-road construction equipment to be zero-emission, where available, and all diesel- fueled off-road construction equipment, to be equipped with CARB Tier IV-compliant engines or better, and including this requirement in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts, with successful contractors demonstrating the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities. • Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day. • Requiring on-road heavy-duty haul trucks to be model year 2010 or newer if diesel-fueled. 47 CAPCOA (Jan. 2008) CEQA & Climate Change, p. 71-72, http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. 48 Calculated: 0 residents + 22 employees = 22 service population. 49 Calculated: (470.54 MT CO2e/year) / (22 service population) = (21.39 MT CO2e/SP/year). 50 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice. 21 • Providing electrical hook ups to the power grid, rather than use of diesel-fueled generators, for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible. • Limiting the amount of daily grading disturbance area. • Prohibiting grading on days with an Air Quality Index forecast of greater than 100 for particulates or ozone for the project area. • Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes. • Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications. • Conducting an on-site inspection to verify compliance with construction mitigation and to identify other opportunities to further reduce construction impacts. • Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L. • Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees. • Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030. • Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided. • Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations. • Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use. • Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager. • Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project. • Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not 22 mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air. • Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project. • Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration. • Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project. • Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs. • Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel. • Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. • Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages single- occupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking. • Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. • Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. • Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. • Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. • Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area. • Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. • Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. • Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets. These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project construction and operation. Furthermore, as it is policy of the State that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, we emphasize the applicability of incorporating solar power system into the Project design. Until the feasibility of incorporating on-site renewable energy production is considered, the Project should not be approved. 23 An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated health risk and GHG analyses to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible. Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Attachment A: Health Risk Calculations Attachment B: AERSCREEN Output Files Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV Attachment D: Paul E. Rosenfeld CV Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.0974 Total DPM (lbs)175.4871233 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.00667 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.53369863 Total DPM (g)79600.95912 Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.036547945 Construction Duration (days)306 Emission Rate (g/s)0.002214681 Total DPM (lbs)13.34 Total DPM (lbs)163.3117808 Release Height (meters)3 Emission Rate (g/s)0.000191877 Total DPM (g)74078.22378 Total Acreage 3.8 Release Height (meters)3 Start Date 3/1/2022 Max Horizontal (meters)175.37 Total Acreage 3.8 End Date 1/1/2023 Min Horizontal (meters)87.69 Max Horizontal (meters)175.37 Construction Days 306 Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Min Horizontal (meters)87.69 Setting Urban Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)1.5 Annual Emissions (tons/year)0.0202 Population 216,784 Setting Urban Daily Emissions (lbs/day)0.110684932 Start Date 3/1/2022 Population 216,784 Construction Duration (days)110 End Date 4/21/2023 Total DPM (lbs)12.17534247 Total Construction Days 416 Total DPM (g)5522.735342 Total Years of Construction 1.14 Start Date 1/1/2023 Total Years of Operation 28.86 End Date 4/21/2023 Construction Days 110 2023 Construction Operation 2022 Total Emission Rate Attachment A Start date and time 06/07/22 16:03:33 AERSCREEN 21112 Amazing 34 ‐ Construction Amazing 34 ‐ Construction ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Emission Rate: 0.221E‐02 g/s 0.176E‐01 lb/hr Area Height:3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 175.37 meters 575.36 feet Area Source Width: 87.69 meters 287.70 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode:URBAN Population:216784 Dist to Ambient Air:1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** Attachment B No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 06/07/22 16:05:27 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 06/07/22 16:05:44 REFINE started 06/07/22 16:05:44 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 06/07/22 16:05:46 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 06/07/22 16:05:49 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.33800E+01 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37445E+01 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40393E+01 50.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43276E+01 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.44420E+01 88.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40566E+01 100.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26040E+01 125.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20118E+01 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16339E+01 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13634E+01 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11621E+01 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10077E+01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88528E+00 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78727E+00 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70622E+00 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63892E+00 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58155E+00 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53297E+00 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49131E+00 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45441E+00 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42216E+00 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39381E+00 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36872E+00 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34616E+00 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32587E+00 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30761E+00 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29103E+00 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27592E+00 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26214E+00 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24954E+00 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23792E+00 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22715E+00 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21720E+00 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20801E+00 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19947E+00 825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19154E+00 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18414E+00 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17724E+00 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17078E+00 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16472E+00 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15900E+00 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15362E+00 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14855E+00 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14376E+00 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13921E+00 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13490E+00 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13083E+00 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12696E+00 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12329E+00 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11980E+00 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11648E+00 1225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11332E+00 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11030E+00 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10742E+00 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10467E+00 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10204E+00 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.99522E-01 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.97112E-01 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.94802E-01 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.92587E-01 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90460E-01 1475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88413E-01 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86448E-01 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84560E-01 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82743E-01 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80993E-01 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.79807E-01 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78154E-01 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76559E-01 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.75020E-01 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73534E-01 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.72098E-01 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70710E-01 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69367E-01 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68068E-01 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66811E-01 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65593E-01 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.64413E-01 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63270E-01 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62161E-01 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61086E-01 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60042E-01 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.59029E-01 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58045E-01 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57089E-01 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56160E-01 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55257E-01 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54378E-01 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53524E-01 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52693E-01 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51883E-01 2225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51095E-01 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50328E-01 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49580E-01 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48852E-01 2325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48141E-01 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47449E-01 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46773E-01 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46114E-01 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45471E-01 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44843E-01 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44230E-01 2500.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43632E-01 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43047E-01 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42476E-01 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41917E-01 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41372E-01 2625.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40838E-01 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40317E-01 2675.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39806E-01 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39307E-01 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38819E-01 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38341E-01 2775.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37873E-01 2800.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37415E-01 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36966E-01 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36527E-01 2875.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36097E-01 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35675E-01 2925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35262E-01 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34857E-01 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34460E-01 3000.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34071E-01 3025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33689E-01 3050.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33315E-01 3075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32947E-01 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32587E-01 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32234E-01 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31887E-01 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31546E-01 3200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31212E-01 3225.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30884E-01 3250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30562E-01 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30245E-01 3300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29935E-01 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29629E-01 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29329E-01 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29035E-01 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28745E-01 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28460E-01 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28180E-01 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27905E-01 3500.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27635E-01 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27369E-01 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27107E-01 3575.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26850E-01 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26597E-01 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26348E-01 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26103E-01 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25862E-01 3700.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25625E-01 3725.00 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25391E-01 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25162E-01 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24935E-01 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24713E-01 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24493E-01 3850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24277E-01 3875.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24065E-01 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23855E-01 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23649E-01 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23446E-01 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23245E-01 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23048E-01 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22854E-01 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22662E-01 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22473E-01 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22287E-01 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22104E-01 4149.99 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21923E-01 4175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21744E-01 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21568E-01 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21395E-01 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21224E-01 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21055E-01 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20889E-01 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20725E-01 4350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20563E-01 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20404E-01 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20246E-01 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20091E-01 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19937E-01 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19786E-01 4500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19637E-01 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19489E-01 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19343E-01 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19200E-01 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19058E-01 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18918E-01 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Construction_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:47:32 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18780E-01 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18643E-01 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18508E-01 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18375E-01 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18244E-01 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18114E-01 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17986E-01 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17859E-01 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17734E-01 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17610E-01 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17488E-01 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17367E-01 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17248E-01 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17130E-01 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 Start date and time 06/07/22 16:06:29 AERSCREEN 21112 Amazing 34 ‐ Operations ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ DATA ENTRY VALIDATION ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ METRIC ENGLISH ** AREADATA ** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Emission Rate: 0.192E‐03 g/s 0.152E‐02 lb/hr Area Height: 3.00 meters 9.84 feet Area Source Length: 175.37 meters 575.36 feet Area Source Width: 87.69 meters 287.70 feet Vertical Dimension: 1.50 meters 4.92 feet Model Mode: URBAN Population: 216784 Dist to Ambient Air: 1.0 meters 3. feet ** BUILDING DATA ** No Building Downwash Parameters ** TERRAIN DATA ** No Terrain Elevations Source Base Elevation: 0.0 meters 0.0 feet Probe distance: 5000. meters 16404. feet No flagpole receptors No discrete receptors used ** FUMIGATION DATA ** No fumigation requested ** METEOROLOGY DATA ** Min/Max Temperature: 250.0 / 310.0 K ‐9.7 / 98.3 Deg F Minimum Wind Speed: 0.5 m/s Anemometer Height: 10.000 meters Dominant Surface Profile: Urban Dominant Climate Type: Average Moisture Surface friction velocity (u*): not adjusted DEBUG OPTION ON AERSCREEN output file: 2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations.out *** AERSCREEN Run is Ready to Begin No terrain used, AERMAP will not be run ************************************************** SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS & MAKEMET Obtaining surface characteristics... Using AERMET seasonal surface characteristics for Urban with Average Moisture Season Albedo Bo zo Winter 0.35 1.50 1.000 Spring 0.14 1.00 1.000 Summer 0.16 2.00 1.000 Autumn 0.18 2.00 1.000 Creating met files aerscreen_01_01.sfc & aerscreen_01_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_02_01.sfc & aerscreen_02_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_03_01.sfc & aerscreen_03_01.pfl Creating met files aerscreen_04_01.sfc & aerscreen_04_01.pfl Buildings and/or terrain present or rectangular area source, skipping probe FLOWSECTOR started 06/07/22 16:07:17 ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Winter Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Winter sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Spring Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Spring sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Summer Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Summer sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******************************************** Running AERMOD Processing Autumn Processing surface roughness sector 1 ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 1 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 2 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 5 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 3 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 10 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 4 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 15 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 5 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 20 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 6 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 25 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ***************************************************** Processing wind flow sector 7 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for FLOWSECTOR stage 2 Autumn sector 30 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** FLOWSECTOR ended 06/07/22 16:07:33 REFINE started 06/07/22 16:07:33 AERMOD Finishes Successfully for REFINE stage 3 Winter sector 0 ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** REFINE ended 06/07/22 16:07:35 ********************************************** AERSCREEN Finished Successfully With no errors or warnings Check log file for details *********************************************** Ending date and time 06/07/22 16:07:38 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] Concentration Distance Elevation Diag Season/Month Zo sector Date H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS HT REF TA HT 0.29293E+00 1.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32453E+00 25.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35007E+00 50.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37506E+00 75.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 * 0.38497E+00 88.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35157E+00 100.00 0.00 25.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22568E+00 125.00 0.00 20.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17436E+00 150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14160E+00 175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11816E+00 200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10072E+00 225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.87338E-01 250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76724E-01 275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.68230E-01 300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61206E-01 325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55373E-01 350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50401E-01 375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46191E-01 400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42580E-01 425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39382E-01 450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36587E-01 475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34130E-01 500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31955E-01 525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30001E-01 550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28242E-01 575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26659E-01 600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25223E-01 625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23913E-01 650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22719E-01 675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21627E-01 700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20620E-01 725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19686E-01 750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18824E-01 775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18028E-01 800.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17288E-01 825.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16600E-01 850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15959E-01 875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15361E-01 900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14801E-01 925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14276E-01 950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13780E-01 975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.13314E-01 1000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12874E-01 1025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12459E-01 1050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.12065E-01 1075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11692E-01 1100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11338E-01 1125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.11003E-01 1150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10685E-01 1175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10383E-01 1200.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.10095E-01 1225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.98207E-02 1250.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.95592E-02 1275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.93097E-02 1300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.90712E-02 1325.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.88433E-02 1350.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.86252E-02 1375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.84164E-02 1400.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.82162E-02 1425.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.80242E-02 1450.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.78398E-02 1475.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.76624E-02 1500.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.74922E-02 1525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.73285E-02 1550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.71711E-02 1575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.70194E-02 1600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.69166E-02 1625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.67733E-02 1650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.66351E-02 1675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.65018E-02 1700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.63729E-02 1725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.62485E-02 1750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.61282E-02 1775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.60118E-02 1800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.58993E-02 1825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.57903E-02 1850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.56847E-02 1875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.55825E-02 1900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.54834E-02 1924.99 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.53873E-02 1950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52941E-02 1975.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.52036E-02 2000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.51158E-02 2025.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.50305E-02 2050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.49477E-02 2075.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.48672E-02 2100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47889E-02 2125.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.47128E-02 2150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.46388E-02 2175.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.45667E-02 2200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44966E-02 2225.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.44283E-02 2250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.43618E-02 2275.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42970E-02 2300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.42338E-02 2325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41722E-02 2350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.41122E-02 2375.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.40537E-02 2400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39965E-02 2425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.39408E-02 2450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38864E-02 2475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.38333E-02 2500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37814E-02 2525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.37307E-02 2550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36812E-02 2575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.36328E-02 2600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35856E-02 2625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.35393E-02 2650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34941E-02 2675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34499E-02 2700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.34066E-02 2725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33643E-02 2750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.33229E-02 2775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32823E-02 2800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32426E-02 2825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.32037E-02 2850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31657E-02 2875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.31284E-02 2900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30918E-02 2925.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30560E-02 2950.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.30209E-02 2975.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29865E-02 3000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29528E-02 3025.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.29197E-02 3050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28873E-02 3075.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28554E-02 3100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.28242E-02 3125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27936E-02 3150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27635E-02 3174.99 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27340E-02 3200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.27050E-02 3225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26766E-02 3250.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26487E-02 3275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.26213E-02 3300.00 0.00 5.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25943E-02 3325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25679E-02 3350.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25419E-02 3375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.25163E-02 3400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24912E-02 3425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24666E-02 3450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24423E-02 3475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.24185E-02 3500.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23950E-02 3525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23720E-02 3550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23493E-02 3575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23270E-02 3600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.23051E-02 3625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22835E-02 3650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22623E-02 3675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22414E-02 3700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22208E-02 3725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.22006E-02 3750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21807E-02 3775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21611E-02 3800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21418E-02 3825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21228E-02 3849.99 0.00 15.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.21040E-02 3875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20856E-02 3900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20674E-02 3925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20496E-02 3950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20320E-02 3975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.20146E-02 4000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19975E-02 4025.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19806E-02 4050.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19640E-02 4075.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19477E-02 4100.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19315E-02 4125.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19156E-02 4150.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.19000E-02 4175.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18845E-02 4200.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18693E-02 4225.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18542E-02 4250.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18394E-02 4275.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18248E-02 4300.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.18104E-02 4325.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17962E-02 4350.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17822E-02 4375.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17683E-02 4400.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17547E-02 4425.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17412E-02 4450.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17279E-02 4475.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17148E-02 4500.00 0.00 10.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.17018E-02 4525.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16890E-02 4550.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16764E-02 4575.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16640E-02 4600.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16517E-02 4625.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16396E-02 4650.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 file:///C/Users/swinn/Downloads/2022.06.07_Amazing34_AERSCREEN_Operations_max_conc_distance.txt[6/9/2022 10:48:00 AM] 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16276E-02 4675.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16158E-02 4700.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.16041E-02 4725.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15925E-02 4750.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15811E-02 4775.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15699E-02 4800.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15588E-02 4825.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15478E-02 4850.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15369E-02 4875.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15262E-02 4900.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15156E-02 4925.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.15052E-02 4950.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14948E-02 4975.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 0.14846E-02 5000.00 0.00 0.0 Winter 0-360 10011001 -1.30 0.043 -9.000 0.020 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50 10.0 310.0 2.0 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert Industrial Stormwater Compliance CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 30 years of experience in environmental policy, contaminant assessment and remediation, stormwater compliance, and CEQA review. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and directed efforts to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. For the past 15 years, as a founding partner with SWAPE, Matt has developed extensive client relationships and has managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of projects ranging from industrial stormwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2104, 2017; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); Attachment C 2 • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities. • Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 3 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted 4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific 5 principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). 6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009‐2011. SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources. Attachment D Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021 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 Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. 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, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA. Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting , Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021 Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 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. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility . APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021 Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021 Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021 United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021 Trial, October 8-4-2021 In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK, Case No.: No. 18-L-6845 Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021 In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517 Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc. Case Number CV20127-094749 Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021 In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al. Case Number 1:17-cv-000508 Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company. Case No. 1720288 Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021 In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al. Case No. 18STCV01162 Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020 In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant. Case No.: 1716-CV10006 Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019 In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant. Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011 In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076 Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010 In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case Number 2:07CV1052 Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009 EXHIBIT B WI #22-004.11 July 11, 2022 Ms. Amalia Bowley Fuentes Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 SUBJECT: Amazing 34 Distribution Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Comments on the Noise Analysis Dear Ms. Bowley Fuentes Per your request, I have reviewed the subject matter document Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND). The proposed Project in San Bernardino would demolish an existing warehouse building and construct a new distribution warehouse that will include storage (~77,560 sq. ft.), warehouse mezzanine (~7,350 sq. ft.), wholesale (2,280 sq. ft. 1st floor) and office (2,280 sq. ft. 2nd floor). The project operating hours are listed as Monday through Saturday, 7 AM to 6 PM, but there is no discussion in the project description regarding the refrigeration status of the project. The air quality analysis appears to assume that the project be unrefrigerated (Table F, page 36). Baseline Noise Environment is Not Properly Established The ISMND provides no evidence upon which to base its determination of the Project’s increase in noise levels (Criterion 13 a and 13 c) as the ISMND lacks any discussion of existing noise levels. The single paragraph on the noise environment (p. 73 of 108) provides no site-specific data to establish the noise impact assessment, and no discussion is provided to set the context for whether the existing noise environment is compatible with the existing land use. Unfortunately, the City’s Noise Element also lacks any data that documents the noise environment at the time the General Plan1 was approved in 2005. However, it does include future noise contours along the major roadways (Figure N-2, page 14-17) for some unstated target year. This figure appears to show that land use at about 95 ft from the center of Waterman Avenue are exposed to CNEL levels of 70 CNEL, but land use along Central Avenue, where no noise contours are shown, are presumed to be less than CNEL 60 from roadway and railroad noise. The Noise Element (page 14-13) mentions the lack of noise data from the nearby San Bernardino 1 https://cdn5- hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_17442462/File/Government/Department/Community%20&%20Eco nomic%20Development/Planning/Complete%20General%20Plan%20Compressed.pdf WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 2 International Airport (SBIA)2, where noise contours were to be incorporated from the airport’s master plan into the Noise Element’s Figure N-2 and the Land Use Figure LU-4. It is not apparent whether that has been done. Given the proximity of the project 1.3 miles west of the end of the SBIA runways, it is likely that the noise from SBIA influences the noise environment at the project site, and data regarding the existing noise environment is essential to consider whether noise increases would be significant. Figure LU-4 of the General Plan shows that the project falls within the Airport Influence Area. Thresholds of Significance are Not Properly Developed The ISMND does not reference the City’s Noise Element, Chapter 14 of General Plan, which cites many policies that are applicable to this project, including the following: 14.1.2 Require that automobile and truck access to commercial properties abutting residential parcels be located at the maximum practical distance from the residential parcel. (LU-1) 14.1.3 Require that all parking for commercial uses abutting residential areas be enclosed within a structure, buffered by walls, and/or limited hours of operation. (LU-1) 14.1.4 Prohibit the development of new or expansion of existing industrial, commercial, or other uses that generate noise impacts on housing, schools, health care facilities or other sensitive uses above a Ldn of 65 dB(A). (LU-1) 14.2.2 Employ noise mitigation practices when designing future streets and highways, and when improvements occur along existing road segments. Mitigation measures should emphasize the establishment of natural buffers or setbacks between the arterial roadways and adjoining noise-sensitive areas. (N-1) 14.2.3 Require that development that increases the ambient noise level adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses provide appropriate mitigation measures. (LU-1) 14.2.4 Maintain roadways so that the paving is in good condition and free of cracks, bumps, and potholes. (A-2) 14.2.5 Require sound walls, berms, and landscaping along existing and future highways and railroad right-of-ways to beautify the landscape and reduce noise. (N-1) 14.2.6 Buffer residential neighborhoods from noise caused by train operations and increasing high traffic volumes along major arterials and freeways. (N-1) 14.2.8 Minimize noise attributable to vehicular travel in residential neighborhoods by inhibiting through trips by the use of cul-de-sacs, one-way streets, and other traffic controls. 14.2.17 Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise compatibility criteria and noise contours as defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the SBIA and depicted in Figure LU-4 14.2.18 Limit the development of sensitive land uses located within the 65 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour, as defined in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the SBIA and depicted in Figure LU-4. 14.2.19 As may be necessary, require acoustical analysis and ensure the provision of effective noise mitigation measures for sensitive land uses, especially residential uses, in areas significantly impacted by noise. 2 No noise contours appear to be available. https://www.sbdgoodneighbor.com/ WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 3 Appendix 1 of the General Plan contains Implementation Measures of the General Plan, including a requirement to mitigate new road projects that increase the noise by 3 dBA; a 5 dBA increase is allowed if the noise would stay within the goals of the existing Noise Element. The Goals are understood to be the land use compatibility guidance provided in Figure N-1 (page 14.5) of the Noise Element. Given the many policies listed above from the Noise, any increase in the noise environment could be considered potentially significant. Per CEQA3, the ISMND must clearly show that the mitigation would eliminate potentially significant effects: Figure 1 CEQA Section 15070(b) Impact Analyses are Incomplete Noise sensitive receptors are not adequately identified The noise analysis for the ISMND lacks assessment at many noise sensitive uses, including, but not limited to: homes to the north of the project, homes south of E Central Avenue, and the church near the southeast corner of S. Waterman Avenue and E Central Avenue. There is no discussion of the truck route(s), and thus potential noise sensitive receptors affected by off-site noise impacts cannot be readily identified. The construction noise analysis is incorrect. The construction noise analysis on page 74 (of 108) only addresses noise at one residence to the east at 175 ft distance. In the paragraph under short-term construction impacts, the ISMND states that the “Project site is located adjacent to the I-10, Waterman Avenue and Central Avenue with high ambient noise levels.” As there are no noise measurements, there is no evidence to document that the noise levels at any of the noise sensitive uses are “high”. Furthermore, at 3 miles from I-10, this project is not “adjacent” to I-10. The ISMND presents noise levels from construction equipment in Table 10, however the far right column extrapolates the equipment noise to an arbitrary distance of 1,000 ft, which has no relevance to the project. There is no calculation shown to combine the construction equipment, and the ISMND lacks any basis to claim that “(a)ll construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously at a construction area nearest to sensitive receptors.” Without any knowledge of the baseline noise environment, and without clear significance thresholds, there is no basis for the ISMND’s claim that short-term construction noise would be less than significant. The ISMND cites the City’s prohibition of nighttime operations of certain types of equipment, “except with the approval of the City.” Given the proximity of noise sensitive uses, the ISMND must clarify that the City will grant no such permission. The ISMND lacks any discussion of the operation phase of the project The warehouse, office, and wholesale areas would presumably require air-conditioning. Based on the 3 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IA1DEFD80D48811DEBC02831C6D6C108E? WILSON IHRIG Amazing 34 Distribution Warehouse ISMND Page 4 air quality analysis, no refrigeration would be provided. The hours of operation would be Monday- Saturday 7 AM to 6 PM, and thus noise from late night activities would not appear to be an issue. However, if refrigeration is a possibility, those units could operate 24/7, and the nighttime noise impact would require evaluation for conformance with the City’s Noise Ordinance limit (65 dBA at the exterior and 45 dBA at the interior), and also evaluate the Ldn against the policies of the Noise Element. Typically, the thermostat settings will have an operational setpoint to provide a tempered space by the time the building opens at 7 AM. During winter months it may be necessary to operate the building HVAC between 6 AM and 7 AM. which is typically considered part of the “nighttime”. In our experience there would be several mechanical units on the rooftop. Such equipment could include air cooled condenser fans with a typical sound rating of 85 sound power level (PWL), and several make up air fans as large as 40,000 cubic feet per minute (CFM) (90 dBA PWL). A combination of two or more fans would generate a noise level on the order of 45 dBA to a distance of 200 ft. Loading docks are shown at the northside of the project on page 20 of 108. These loading docks would be approximately 250 ft away from residences, and backup beeper, idling and other truck noises could be potentially significant if there were to be nighttime operations. The project would generate 44 truck trips, which would add up to 88 trucks on nearby roads (in/out access). If these trucks would access the drive aisle along the right side of the project, the trucks would potentially increase the noise a significant amount at nearby noise sensitive receptors. Accelerating trucks moving through the intersection at Waterman and Central and at other points along the truck route(s) could also increase the noise at other noise sensitive receptors. Noise Mitigations are Lacking Construction noise and loading dock noise would be potentially significant impacts, and suitable mitigation could include:  Temporary sound walls along the Project perimeter during construction that block line of sight and provide sufficient reduction to eliminate the noise impact  Time limits on truck activities during construction and operations  Truck routing requirements Conclusions The ISMND lacks key elements to in its noise analysis, including data on the existing noise environment, noise sensitive receptors, thresholds of significance, adequate noise analysis and noise mitigations. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information. Very truly yours, WILSON IHRIG Deborah A. Jue, INCE-USA Principal amazing 24 ismnd_noise review_wilson ihrig_ 071122.docx DEBORAH JUE Principal Since joining Wilson Ihrig in 1990, Ms. Jue has been involved in with many projects from environmental assessments and entitlements, through design development, construction documents and construction administration support. As an acoustical consultant, she has provided noise measurement, analysis and recommendations to control noise and vibration both at the interior of the project and at the neighboring properties. She has authored many reports concerning compliance with the requirements of California Noise Insulation Standards, Title 24, local Noise Elements, environmental assessments and Federal noise criteria, and is well aware of the additional design and construction technique requirements to achieve industry standards. Ms. Jue has authored or provided input for many environmental documents and technical studies in accordance with NEPA and California’s CEQA regulations, most of them related to surface transportation, and she gives presentations to public officials when necessary to explain construction noise problems, noise mitigation goals, and noise control methods. She can develop construction noise and vibration criteria to address vibration damage potential to nearby buildings and sensitive structures, and vibration annoyance or disruption potential for occupants of nearby buildings. Education  M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1998  B.S. in General Engineering: Acoustics, Stanford University, 1988 Professional Associations (Member)  American Society of Mechanical Engineers  Acoustical Society of America  National Council of Acoustical Consultants  Institute of Noise Control Engineering  WTS  Transportation Research Board, AEP80 Standing Committee Member (2021-2024) Research and Published Papers  ACRP Report 175, ACRP 07-14, Improving Intelligibility of Airport Terminal Public Address Systems  NCHRP 25-25, Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects  Transportation Research Record, V. 2502, “Considerations to Establish Ground-Borne Noise Criteria to Define Mitigation for Noise-Sensitive Spaces” Relevant Experience  California High Speed Rail Caltrain Corridor EIR/EIS, San Francisco to San Jose  UC Berkeley Northgate Hall A/V Renovations, Berkeley  MacArthur Station, long-term construction noise and vibration monitoring, Oakland  Safeway @ Claremont & College, HVAC noise and construction noise monitoring, Oakland  ACTC I-80/Ashby, interchange traffic noise analysis, Berkeley and Emeryville  ACTC I-680 Express Lanes, traffic noise analysis, Contra Costa County, CA  Chase Arena, construction noise and vibration monitoring, San Francisco