SU0013380 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and 39 and this whole area was covered with 11 other Audubon Societies. The results of the first year study shows there has been a 51. 2% decline in burrowing owl population in the last 5 years. Within San Joaquin County there has been a 68 . 6% decline. He said this is alarming and asked that the DEIR address the burrowing owl. • The Swainson hawk has been identified onsite and there is some confusion about that. On page 4 . 13-27 is a map showing past and present nest sites, as recognized by the Department of Fish and Game. The DEIR indicates that 1, 500 acres is good enough for mitigating the impact on the Swainson hawk. He said the DEIR indicates a misreading of Fish and Game's guidelines, which start on page 10. 16-7. On page 10. 16-15, under 3 , "Maintenance of Sufficient Foraging Habitat, " (a) states that the territory must have been used at least once historically, as determined by DFG; (b) states that mitigation will be required for all lands within the defined foraging area; and (c) states that mitigation for foraging areas shall be a minimum of 1 to 1 ratio; (i.e. , one acre replacement for each acre loss of habitat) . He said they have correctly identified 4,270 acres of foraging habitat for the Swainson hawk; therefore, according to DFG mitigation guidelines, they need to mitigate for 4,270 acres of Swainson hawk habitat. • The kit fox has been identified in the DEIR as being west of the project. It is also known to be south of the project. Residents of the area have reported sightings of kit fox. Experts have been shown the tracks and the experts say that it looks like kit foxes are there. Fish and Game, within the last few years, have had a radio collar on a kit fox that walked right through the project site and even crossed the river. Basically, the EIR states that they will study the problem for future consideration. Fish and Wildlife requires a 3 to 1 mitigation. There should be some concern as to finding areas that Swainson hawk and kit fox will both be compatible. • Mr. Holt said that another speaker objected to any requirement of a restrictive mitigation but asked that they be able to give a promise of some approval by Fish and Game in the future. He thought that would be against the law in CEQA (Sundstrom vs. Mendocino County) . They need to have that in writing at this stage to have it certified as adequate. Mike Locke, City Manager for the City of Tracy, 325 East 10th Street, was present to represent the City of Tracy, said a brief presentation would be made at this time with in-depth written comments to be submitted later. He noted members of his staff that would make statements. David Storer, Senior Planner with the City of Tracy, said that his comments reiterate concerns raised in the August 29, 1991 letter responding to the Notice of Preparation issued by the County. He said his comments deal with four points: 1) alternatives, PC MINUTES -5- JAN 16, 1992