SU0004149 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

animals inhabiting the project site are adaptive to agriculture uses; therefore, individuals a f not taken during the excavation would likelyrelocate to similar habitat in the vicinity of the project site. The mined property would eventually be reclaimed and used for agriculture; many common plant and animal species are expected to reoccur on the project site after i reclamation. Impacts to common plants and wildlife would be less-than-significant. E Alternative,4: No Project d Under the No Project Alternative, no disturbance of the project site is anticipated and therefore no impacts to common plants and wildlife would occur. 3 No mitigation is required. ' Impact 4.7-2 # 7: Potential Impacts to San Joaquin Kit Fox a All uar Excavation Alternatives 1 2 and 3 Implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in the loss of up to 142 acres of l potential San Joaquin kit fox habitat. Orchards are used infrequently by foraging kit fox � and,'in general,,are considered to have low habitat value (Monk and Associates 1995). However, there is evidence that the San Joaquin kit fox will use occasionally use orchards for foraging when adjacent to grasslands and other preferred habitat (S. Larsen pers. comm., 1997). Kit fox are not expected to den on-site but orchard edges and ruderal areas do provide potential denning habitat. During the review process for other mining projects in the vicinity of the project site, both the CDFG and USFWS have stated that orchards i may provide foraging habitat for the kit fox and that loss of this habitat may be construed as a take (Jones and Stokes 1992; S. Larsen, pers. comm., 1997). Because implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in the loss of potential foraging habitat, impacts to San Joaquin kit fox would be considered significant. Use of rodenticides and herbicides during project construction could also adversely affect C the San Joaquin kit fox. These chemicals can be responsible for rima or secondary - � primary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend (USFWS ,i 1997). Use of rodenticides is a potentially significant impact. Alternative 4: No Project E Under the No Project Alternative, no disturbance of the project site is proposed and ` therefore no impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox are anticipated. Mitigation Measure 4.7-2a: (Altematives 1, 2, and 3) The proponent shall enter into formal consultation with the USFWS prior to the beginning of construction. As part of the formal consultation process, the proponent shall be required to obtain an incidental take permit and prepare a NCP under I Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-102 ER-96-3