SU0004916 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

kit fox scat were observed on the proposed community college parcel (Figure 4.10-1)(Biosystems Analysis,Inc. 1992). A subsequent assessment of the status of kit fox in the MHMP area concluded that although kit fox may — occur in the vicinity,there was no evidence that they occupied the College Park site or the larger MHMP area at that time or historically, and that the den and scat were more likely those of red fox(Zentner and Zentner 1993). Potentially suitable denning habitat on the College Park site is currently restricted to the proposed community college parcel in the southwest comer of the College Park site,adjacent to the Delta—Mendota Canal. Many suitable burrows were observed in this area during the 1990s surveys and during the EDAW reconnaissance survey(Figure 4.10-1). The agricultural and developed habitats that comprise the College Park site provide low- quality foraging habitat for kit fox. Since the MHMP surveys were conducted in the early 1990s,there have been several reports of San Joaquin kit fox within a few miles of the College Park site,one to the north,between the College Park site and Clifton Court Forebay, and two to the south, along the California Aqueduct near the town of Midway(CNDDB 2004). However,these and additional CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of the College Park site have all been documented in non-agricultural areas,including grassland and scrub habitat. The grasslands adjacent to the future off-site Grant Line Road widening west of the Alameda County line provide suitable kit fox habitat and could support occupied kit fox burrows. — SENSITIVE HABITATS Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies, or that are afforded specific consideration through CEQA, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code,or Section 404 of the CWA. The perennial(Hernandez)drainage is likely to meet the wetland criteria of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and appears to originate from leakage from the Delta—Mendota Canal.Therefore,this drainage is anticipated to be subject to USACE jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA.The two ephemeral drainages (College and Tuso)do not support wetland vegetation and would not be subject to USACE jurisdiction unless USACE determines they are hydrologically connected or adjacent to jurisdictional waters of the United States. The BBID irrigation canals appear to have been excavated in uplands and do not correspond with former natural drainages. Therefore,they are not anticipated to be subject to USACE jurisdiction. However,there have been recent cases in which USACE has taken jurisdiction over agricultural canals because they were considered — hydrologically connected to other jurisdictional waters of the United States,even though the connection was through pumping. The jurisdictional status of the drainages and canals would be determined by USACE through the formal wetland delineation process. The irrigation canals could also be subject to DFG jurisdiction under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code,because they are characterized by a distinct"bed and bank" The ponds appear to be hydrologically isolated features excavated in uplands and,therefore, are not expected to be subject to USACE or DFG jurisdiction. Potential jurisdictional features in the off-site improvement areas _ include an irrigation canal east of Mountain House Parkway,the Delta—Mendota Canal,the California Aqueduct, and Mountain House Creek. All of these could be subject to USACE and/or DFG jurisdiction. PROTECTED TREES No protected trees(oak trees or heritage trees protected by the San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 or San Joaquin County Development Title)grow within the College Park site or off-site infrastructure locations (Parilo, — pers. comm.,2003). A total of 188 trees that meet the preservation criteria of Section 7.3.7 of the MHMP were documented during EDAW tree surveys conducted along Grant Line Road and on the GNK,LLC parcels(EDAW 2003). Figure 4.10-2 depicts the location of these trees. Specific information about each tree(i.e., species, size, — percent die back) is provided in Appendix O of this EIR. The majority of the trees(132)were California black walnut(Juglans californica),and the remainder consisted of 19 American elms(Ulmus americana), five black locusts(Robinia pseudoacacia),three English walnuts(Juglans regia),21 Australian pines(Casuarina spp.),two eucalyptus(Eucalyptus formanir), two ash(Fraxinus spp.),one pine(Pinus spp.),one mulberry(Morus spp.),and one almond(Prunus delcis). Other trees that were documented but do not qualify for preservation under the MHMP include 22 mature trees in poor condition and more than 300 saplings and immature trees. _ EDAW College Park at Mountain House Specific Plan III Draft EIR Biological Resources 4.10-10 San Joaquin County