Page 20 - northlake_appeal_20180423

did not meet the standards of the current survey protocol (CDFW 2012) and therefore
could not be relied upon to conclude absence during the breeding season (Table 1). This
was a critical mistake, because the 2015 survey effort was restricted to the winter
months after having concluding, inappropriately, that burrowing owls on site are
wintering owls and not present during the breeding season. An inadequate survey effort
in 2007 was used to justify an inadequate survey effort in 2015 (Table 2).

The burrowing owl survey effort also fell short of multiple other standards of the CD FW
(2012) burrowing owl survey guidelines (Tables 1and2). The CDFW (2012) guidelines
are imperfect, but are generally effective. (I would advocate for more time scanning for
owls before walking transects and I would advocate for nocturnal surveys because
burrowing owls are more active at night and more readily detectable.) The guidelines
strive to have those doing the surveys to assess the reliability of their findings. The
guidelines encourage multiple years of surveys when doubt arises about the
representativeness or the veracity of findings. In this case, the 2014/ 2015 winter survey
was performed at the peak of the most intense drought in California's recorded history -
at a time when I had recorded a nearly 90% decline in burrowing owls in the Altamont
Pass (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) and when other biologists similarly
documented substantial declines thought to have been caused by drought. Of all years
to doubt the representativeness of burrowing owl surveys, 2014/2015 set the standard. I
would not give much credence to the 2014/2015 winter survey, and I would instead
repeat the survey next year because last year the number of emerging chicks per nest
increased greatly, and this year the number of nesting pairs has reached about 50% of
the abundance of 2011 and chick productivity has increased even more. By next year
burrowing owl surveys ought to better represent the average abundance and
distribution, and would better inform decision-makers and the public.

According to the SEIR (2017:5.2-39), " ... if active wintering burrows are detected within
the Project impact boundary, artificial burrows outside the impact boundary within
suitable habitat would be constructed at a 1:1 ratio, ensuring a substantial reduction in
potential impacts during and after Project implementation." However, this measure
would ensure nothing other than the destruction of the local burrowing owl population.
I have been monitoring the effectiveness of artificial burrows constructed for burrowing
owls in multiple study areas including Davis, California, Dixon National Radio
Transmission Facility, and Lemoore Naval Air Station, and I have consulted with
biologists who monitored such structures in other study areas. Whereas artificial
burrows are often used by owls within the first year of construction, they are quickly
abandoned. None of the artificial burrows are used anymore at Davis, Lemoore or
Dixon, and nearly all have been abandoned at San Jose International Airport, Moffett
Field and many other locations. Without the symbiotic alarm-calling and burrow
maintenance of California ground squirrels, artificial burrows fail to provide sufficient
protection from predatory attacks, nor do they provide alternative burrows for escaping
parasite loads. I cannot endorse the construction of artificial burrows as a mitigation
measure for displacing burrowing owls. Burrowing owls need suitable habitat, including
California ground squirrels.

9