Integrated Natural 

Resources Management 

Plan

Defense Distribution Depot

San Joaquin, California

Final

May 2018

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Prepared for:

Defense Logistics Agency

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

25600 Chrisman Road

Tracy, CA 95304

Prepared by:

2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300

Folsom, CA 95630

Contract No. W91278-15-D-0018

Task Order 0002

May 2018

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | i

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA 

This Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, dated May 2018, has been prepared in 

accordance with regulations, standards, and procedures of the Department of Defense, the 

U.S. Army, Defense Logistics Agency, and the Sikes Act, as amended (16 United States Code 

§ 670a et seq.) in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife. The management of fish and wildlife in this INRMP reflects the mutual 

agreement of all parties.

To the extent that resources permit, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, by signature of their agency representative, do hereby agree to enter a 

cooperative agreement program for the conservation, protection, and management of fish and 

wildlife resources present on the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California. 

The intention of this agreement is to develop functioning, sustainable ecological communities on 

these sites that integrate the interests and missions of the agencies charged with conservation, 

protection, and management of natural resources in the public interest. This agreement may be 

modified and amended by mutual agreement of the authorized representatives of the three 

agencies. This agreement will become effective upon the date of the last signatory and shall 

continue in full force for a period of 5 years or until terminated by written notice to the other parties, 

in whole or in part, by any of the parties signing this agreement.

By their signatures below, or an enclosed letter of concurrence, all parties grant their concurrence 

and acceptance of the following document.

Approving Officials:

Jonathan E. Mathews

DLA Installation Operations Site Director

Jennifer M. Norris

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento 

Field Supervisor

James Starr

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Napa

Environmental Program Manager
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

ii | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | iii

ANNUAL REVIEW AND COORDINATION PAGE

This page is used to certify the annual review and coordination of the Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan for Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California. By their signature, the 

certifying official acknowledges that the annual review and coordination of the Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan has occurred for the specified year.

Approving Officials:

2018

Jonathan E. Mathews

DLA Installation Operations Site Director

Date

2019

Name

Title

Date

2020

Name

Title

Date

2019

Name

Title

Date

2022

Name

Title

Date
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

iv | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | v

Executive Summary

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) provides the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, other 

federal agencies, and combined allied forces with logistics, acquisition, and technical services. 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin is the DLA’s Western Strategic Platform providing services 

to the western United States, the Pacific Theatre, and the Indian Ocean area for the Department of 

Defense. DLA maintains operational control of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, though the 

Army retains ownership of the property. 

This Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) has been developed for use by the 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin in accordance with the Sikes Act, as amended (16 United 

States Code § 670a et seq.); the Department of Defense Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources

Conservation Program; Defense Logistics Agency Instruction 4108, Natural and Cultural Resources

Conservation Program; Defense Logistics Agency Regulation 1000.22, Environmental

Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency Actions; and Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental

Protection and Enhancement. 

This INRMP provides a description of the installation and its surrounding environments, and 

presents various management practices designed to mitigate negative impacts and enhance the 

mission on regional ecosystems. These recommendations are balanced against the requirements of 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin to accomplish its mission with the highest efficiency. 

The general goals of the INRMP are as follows:

1. Identify natural resources and operational actions that compromise the function and 

composition of ecosystems, and develop remedies through adaptive management.

2. Sustain and enhance healthy, terrestrial and aquatic habitats that provide services and 

values in an ecosystem.

3. Assess, sustain, and enhance the health and habitats of fish and wildlife populations in a 

manner consistent with the military mission and security constraints.

4. Integrate the natural resources program with local, state, and regional environmental 

programs and initiatives to the maximum extent possible.

Natural resources constraints may include limiting certain activities or prohibiting access to restricted 

areas in order to preclude damage to important natural resources and comply with prevailing laws 

and regulations. These constraints can include known locations of federally listed and other special 

status species, areas preferentially managed for special status species, and areas with a regulatory 

driver (e.g., waters of the United States, including wetlands or migratory bird nest sites). The natural 

resources constraints at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin are discussed further in Section 3 

and Section 5.

Throughout the development of this INRMP, management concerns were identified in a number of 

natural resources subject areas. One of the purposes of this INRMP is to identify current conditions 

as well as specific goals and objectives for each management concern and produce workable and 

useful solutions to reach the desired state. Existing conditions of natural resources on the installation 

are discussed in Section 4. The management concerns involving natural resources constraints to 

planning and mission operations are discussed in detail in Section 5. 

Appendix C provides a list of projects to be implemented based on the management concerns, 

goals, and objectives discussed in Section 5.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

vi | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | vii

Contents

1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Guiding Principles............................................................................................ 1

1.2 Management Philosophy ...................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Regulatory Drivers and Guidance ......................................................................................... 1

1.4 Approvals, Annual Updates and Revisions............................................................................ 2

1.5 INRMP Implementation and Responsibilities......................................................................... 4

Internal Stakeholders ............................................................................................... 4

Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency ................................................................. 4

Army Environmental Command................................................................................ 4

External Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4

1.6 Integration with Other Plans.................................................................................................. 6

Regional Plans......................................................................................................... 6

Installation Plans...................................................................................................... 7

2 Location and Mission......................................................................................................................9

2.1 Location and Area ................................................................................................................ 9

2.2 Installation History ................................................................................................................ 9

2.3 Current Military Missions..................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Surrounding Communities .................................................................................................. 12

2.5 Local and Regional Natural Areas....................................................................................... 12

3 Environmental Management Strategy and Mission Sustainability.................................................. 15

3.1 Supporting Sustainability of the Military Mission and the Natural Environment..................... 15

3.2 Management Strategy ........................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Natural Resources Program Management Strategy ............................................................ 16

3.4 Natural Resources Compliance Requirements.................................................................... 17

3.5 Public Access and Outreach............................................................................................... 17

3.6 Natural Resources Constraints to Missions and Mission Planning....................................... 18

3.7 Achieving No Net Loss of the Military Mission ..................................................................... 18

4 Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Land Use............................................................................................................................ 19

4.2 Climate............................................................................................................................... 19

Climate Change ..................................................................................................... 21

4.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................................... 21

4.4 Geological Resources......................................................................................................... 21

Geology ................................................................................................................. 21

Topography............................................................................................................ 22

Soils....................................................................................................................... 22

Geologic Hazards .................................................................................................. 23

4.5 Water Resources................................................................................................................ 25
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

viii | May 2018

Groundwater.......................................................................................................... 25

Surface Water........................................................................................................ 25

Floodplains ............................................................................................................ 26

4.6 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 26

Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 26

Wildlife................................................................................................................... 29

Special Status Species........................................................................................... 30

Wetlands................................................................................................................ 37

Invasive, Nonnative, Nuisance and Pest Species ................................................... 39

5 Management Concerns, Objectives, and Actions.......................................................................... 45

5.1 Ecosystem Management (ECO).......................................................................................... 46

ECO-1. Develop an Ecosystem Vision for the Installation ....................................... 47

ECO-2: Ecosystem Management of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin 

and Mission Requirements..................................................................................... 47

5.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern (TES)................................................... 47

TES-1: Federal- and State-Listed Species Management......................................... 48

TES-2: Special Status Species Habitat Protection .................................................. 50

TES-3: Special Status Species Awareness............................................................. 50

TES-4: Burrowing Owl Management ...................................................................... 51

5.3 Wetlands and Waters of the United States (WT)................................................................. 52

WT-1: Wetland Vegetation Management ................................................................ 52

5.4 Watershed Management (WM)........................................................................................... 53

WM-1: Water Quality Monitoring Program for Surface Waters ................................ 53

5.5 Fish and Wildlife Management (FW)................................................................................... 53

FW-1: General Wildlife Management...................................................................... 54

FW-2: Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act................................................... 54

FW-3: External Assistance ..................................................................................... 55

5.6 Habitat Management (HM).................................................................................................. 55

HM-1: Soil Resources Management ....................................................................... 55

5.7 Exotic and Invasive Species Management (INV)................................................................. 56

INV-1: Invasive Species Control............................................................................. 56

5.8 Grounds Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 57

GM-1: Integrated Pest Management....................................................................... 57

GM-2: Eradication of Nonnative and Invasive Plant Species during 

Revegetation and Landscaping Activities................................................................ 57

5.9 Agricultural Outleasing (AG) ............................................................................................... 58

AG-1: Multiple-Use Management of Agricultural Outlease Area .............................. 58

5.10 Outdoor Recreation and Public Access (OR) ...................................................................... 59

OR-1: Public Access, General Safety, and Security................................................ 59

5.11 Public Outreach (EDU)....................................................................................................... 59

EDU-1: Conservation Awareness ........................................................................... 59

EDU-2: Personnel Training..................................................................................... 60

5.12 Surrounding Lands ............................................................................................................. 60
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | ix

6 INRMP Implementation Process................................................................................................... 62

6.1 INRMP Implementation....................................................................................................... 62

6.2 Annual Work Plan............................................................................................................... 62

6.3 Prioritization of Projects...................................................................................................... 63

6.4 Funding.............................................................................................................................. 64

Traditional Funding Sources and Mechanisms ....................................................... 64

Non-Traditional Funding Sources and Mechanisms................................................ 65

7 References .................................................................................................................................. 70

8 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action.............................................................................F-1

8.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................F-1

8.2 Background.......................................................................................................................F-1

8.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ...................................................................F-1

8.4 Scope of Analysis..............................................................................................................F-2

8.5 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance Requirements...............................................F-2

8.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ............................................................F-2

8.5.2 Applicable Environmental and Regulatory Compliance..........................................F-3

8.6 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ....................................................................F-3

9 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives....................................................................F-5

9.1 Proposed Action................................................................................................................F-5

9.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ..........................................F-7

9.3 No Action Alternative.........................................................................................................F-7

10 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences............................................................F-9

10.1 Land Use.........................................................................................................................F-10

10.1.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-10

10.1.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-11

10.2 Geology...........................................................................................................................F-11

10.2.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-11

10.2.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-11

10.3 Topography .....................................................................................................................F-12

10.3.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-12

10.3.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-12

10.4 Soils................................................................................................................................F-12

10.4.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-12

10.4.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-12

10.5 Water Resources.............................................................................................................F-13

10.5.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-13

10.5.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-13

10.6 Floodplains......................................................................................................................F-14

10.6.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-14

10.6.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-14
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

x | May 2018

10.7 Aquatic and Riparian Habitat ...........................................................................................F-14

10.7.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-14

10.7.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-14

10.8 Vegetation.......................................................................................................................F-15

10.8.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-15

10.8.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-15

10.9 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................F-15

10.9.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-15

10.9.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-16

10.10 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species ....................................................................F-16

10.10.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-16

10.10.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-16

11 Cumulative and Other Effects....................................................................................................F-19

11.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...........................................................................................F-20

11.2 Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives with the Objectives of Federal, 

Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls..................................F-20

11.3 Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and Maintenance 

and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity....................................................................F-20

11.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..................................................F-20

11.5 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential......................F-21

12 Conclusion................................................................................................................................F-23

13 References ...............................................................................................................................F-25

Appendices

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Relevant Environmental Laws, Regulations, Policies, Guidance, Instructions, and 

Orders

INRMP Projects, Schedules, and Implementation Table

Documentation and Correspondence

Wildlife and Plant Species Lists

Environmental Assessment
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | xi

Figures

Figure 1. Regional Location of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin................................................. 10

Figure 2. Location of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin ............................................................... 11

Figure 3. Soil Map of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin............................................................... 24

Figure 4. Vegetation Classification at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin ...................................... 27

Figure 5. Federally Listed Species Coordination .................................................................................... 49

Photographs

Photograph 1. Agricultural Land Use at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin Annex ........................ 20

Photograph 2. Landscaped Areas at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin ....................................... 28

Photograph 3. Burrowing Owls in San Joaquin County........................................................................... 34

Photograph 4. Seasonally Inundated Retention Pond at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin.......... 39

Photograph 5. Yellow Starthistle on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin......................................... 43

Tables

Table 1. Summary of Existing Land Uses at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin............................ 20

Table 2. Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur on Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin............................................................................................................................... 31

Table 3. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern with the Potential to Occur on Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin........................................................................................... 35

Table 4. Special Status Plant Species that Occur Near Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin ........... 38

Table 5. Invasive and Nonnative Plants Observed on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin.............. 41

Table 6. Summary of INRMP Goals ....................................................................................................... 45

Table 7. Estimated Total Oversight Labor Hours for Implementing 2018 INRMP .................................... 63

Table 8. Recurring and Non-Recurring Conservation Requirements....................................................... 63

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Guiding Principles

The purpose of this Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) is to integrate natural 

resources management with the installation mission at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin. 

INRMPs are an installation’s primary tool for managing natural resources while ensuring success of 

the military mission. This INRMP presents practicable alternatives and recommendations that allow 

for the protection and enhancement of natural resources and conservation of existing ecosystems, 

while minimizing impacts on the installation mission. 

The general goals of the INRMP are as follows:

1. Identify natural resources and operational actions that compromise the function and 

composition of ecosystems and develop remedies through adaptive management.

2. Sustain and enhance healthy, terrestrial and aquatic habitats that provide services and 

values in an ecosystem.

3. Assess, sustain, and enhance the health and habitats of fish and wildlife populations in a 

manner consistent with the military mission and security constraints.

4. Integrate the natural resources program with local, state, and regional environmental 

programs and initiatives to the maximum extent possible.

1.2 Management Philosophy

As part of its mission, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) chose to be a national leader in 

environmental and natural resources stewardship. The vitality of natural resources must be ensured 

to achieve its military mission. As a steward of natural resources, DLA acknowledges its commitment 

to be a conservation leader for its cognizant areas.

Conservation is an integration or blending of natural resources management and preservation 

designed to maintain ecosystem integrity. This INRMP is structured to successfully accomplish 

conservation. It is a dynamic document that will be maintained and adapted, as necessary, to reflect 

updated natural resources information. The development and implementation of this INRMP indicate 

that senior leadership at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin is committed to natural resources 

management as reflected in Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 4715.03, Natural Resources

Conservation Program.

The INRMP presents recommendations that allow for the protection and enhancement of natural 

resources and conservation of existing ecosystems, while minimizing impacts on the installation’s 

missions.

1.3 Regulatory Drivers and Guidance

This INRMP was prepared in accordance with guidance and regulations provided in the Sikes Act, 

as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Instruction 4715.03 (Natural Resources Conservation

Program, DOD 2011); DLA Regulation 1000.22 (Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

2 | May 2018

Agency Actions, DLA 2011a); Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, (Environmental Protection and

Enhancement, 2007); and more recent Department of the Army (DA) and DOD Sikes Act and 

INRMP guidance memoranda. 

The Environmental Assessment of this INRMP was prepared in accordance with Defense Logistics 

Agency Regulation 1000.22 (Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency Actions, 

DLA 2011a) states that the DLA will comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental 

laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, this 

INRMP complements the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public 

Resources Code 21000-21177). 

According to the Sikes Act, as amended, the primary purposes of a military conservation program 

are conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources, sustainable multipurpose use of those 

resources, and public access to military lands, as allowed by safety requirements and military 

security. Moreover, the conservation program must be consistent with the mission-essential use of 

the installation and its lands. The Sikes Act, as amended, requires the preparation of an INRMP to 

facilitate the conservation program. The INRMP must be cooperatively developed with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the state fish and wildlife agency. Representatives from USFWS 

and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided input on this INRMP. The 

resulting plan reflects the mutual agreement of all parties concerning conservation, protection, and 

management of natural resources on the installation. 

Appendix B provides a list of laws, regulations, policy, and guidance that direct natural resources 

management on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin.

1.4 Approvals, Annual Updates and Revisions

Approvals: The Sikes Act, as amended, requires the preparation of an INRMP in cooperation with 

USFWS and the state agencies. In addition, it is required that the resulting Plan reflect the mutual 

agreement of the parties concerning conservation, protection, and management of fish and wildlife 

resources. This is the first INRMP prepared for Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, and mutual 

agreement of the parties is confirmed on the approval page. This INRMP is effective for 5 years from 

the date of approval. 

Annual Updates: INRMPs must also be reviewed by installations at least once per year to verify the 

following (U.S. Army 2006):

• Current information on INRMP project funding.

• All “must fund” projects and activities have been budgeted for, and implementation is on 

schedule.

• All required trained natural resources positions are filled or are in the process of being filled.

• Projects and activities for the upcoming year have been identified and included in the 

INRMP. An updated project list does not necessitate INRMP revision.

• All required coordination has occurred.

• All significant changes to the installation’s mission requirements or its natural resources have 

been identified.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 3

• INRMP goals and objectives are still valid.

• No net loss of mission capability has occurred due to implementation of the INRMP in 

accordance with the Sikes Act.

As part of the annual review, Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin must invite annual feedback 

from USFWS and the state signatory agencies on the effectiveness of the INRMP, and inform the 

agencies which INRMP projects and activities are required to meet current natural resources 

compliance needs. In addition, the INRMP should be updated whenever there is a modification to 

the installation’s mission, or there is a substantial change to the natural or cultural resources of the 

installation. USFWS should be informed whenever there is a modification to the INRMP or there is a 

substantial change to natural resources and initiate consultation if an action could affect a federally 

listed species. The Annual Review and Coordination page is used as a record that an annual review 

took place.

Revisions: The Sikes Act, as amended, and DODI 4715.03 also require that INRMPs must be 

reviewed for operation and effect no less than once every 5 years by DLA, USFWS, and state 

signatory agencies. DOD and DA have provided specific guidance on the joint review and 

coordination process and timeframe. Installations must document the outcome of the joint review to 

reflect the parties’ mutual agreement, either by a jointly executed letter, receipt of signed letters from 

USFWS and state fish and wildlife agency, or a signed new signature page to the INRMP (U.S. Army 

2006).

Per DODI 4715.03, if the 5-year INRMP review for operation and effect results in major revisions to 

the plan, Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin must solicit public review and comments. The 

NEPA process may be used to meet public review requirements if the public is provided a 

meaningful opportunity to comment on the draft revised INRMP. Absent extraordinary 

circumstances, the public must be afforded a minimum of 30 days to review and comment on the 

revisions, either as part of the NEPA process or some other process. After soliciting public 

comments, the installation must afford USFWS and the state agencies the opportunity to review all 

public comments. If an existing INRMP requires only limited revisions that are not expected to result 

in biophysical consequences other than those anticipated for the existing INRMP then neither NEPA 

analysis nor public review comment are necessary. 

INRMP and NEPA Integration: An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared 

concurrently with the 2018 DLA San Joaquin INRMP. The EA evaluated the potential environmental 

and social consequences of implementing the 2018 INRMP and was made available for public 

review over a 30-day period. All public comments received were recorded and considered. 

Documentation of the process and correspondence can be found in Appendix D. The Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) May 2018 can be found in 

Appendix F.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

4 | May 2018

1.5 INRMP Implementation and Responsibilities

Successfully implementing an INRMP requires the support of natural resources personnel, other 

installation staff, command personnel, and installation tenants. The following section discusses the 

responsibilities for INRMP implementation within DA and DLA, and other federal and state agency 

stakeholders.

Internal Stakeholders

Site Director, Installation Operations

The Site Director is responsible for maintaining the installation and all of the facilities. They are also 

responsible for implementation and enforcement of this INRMP and compliance with laws and 

regulations associated with the implementation of this plan.

Environmental Branch

The Environmental Branch has primary responsibility for natural resources management and NEPA 

compliance at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin. Responsibilities include reviewing natural 

and cultural resources projects on the installation and the evaluation of any potential impacts on 

those resources.

Other Support Proponents

Other installation proponents supporting the implementation of this INRMP include Facilities and 

Equipment Engineering Branch; Performance Management Branch; Morale, Welfare, and 

Recreation; and Security and Emergency Services. 

Headquarters, Defense Logistics Agency

Headquarters (HQ), DLA is responsible for ensuring that this INRMP is reviewed and updated, as 

appropriate, every 5 years, or at lesser intervals if warranted by changing circumstances. HQ DLA 

and Site Director will also ensure that this plan is implemented by conducting internal natural 

resources self-assessments at least once every 3 years in accordance with DLA Instruction 4108.

Army Environmental Command

The U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC) provides centralized management, coordination, 

technical support, and execution of Army environmental programs and projects. USAEC, along with 

DOD, issues guidance for the preparation of an INRMP.

External Stakeholders

Government Agencies and Organizations

Federal Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USFWS is a signatory agency of installation INRMPs in accordance with the Sikes Act, as amended. 

In addition, DOD and DA consult formally and informally with USFWS on federally listed species. 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin consults with the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office of the 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 5

Pacific Southwest Region regarding endangered species that are known to occur or have the 

potential to occur on the installation. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) provides contract management, construction 

management, and technical support. Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin has the option to use 

USACE contracts as vehicles for natural resources management and agricultural outlease 

management and to access USACE organizations, such as the U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center for technical assistance and support for natural resources projects.

In addition, the USACE has regulatory authority over waters of the United States, which include 

activities within perennial and intermittent streams, and wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue 

permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States, including 

wetlands. Therefore, even an inadvertent encroachment into wetlands or other waters of the United 

States resulting in displacement or movement of soil or fill materials has the potential to be viewed 

as a violation of the CWA if an appropriate permit has not been issued by USACE. 

State Agencies

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CDFW is a signatory agency for this INRMP. The mission of the department is to “manage 

California’s diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources and the habitats upon which they depend, for 

their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public”. CDFW oversees the 

management and use of the state’s forests and parks, fisheries, and wildlife. It has statewide 

responsibilities for assessing and restoring water quality and habitat; managing and regulating 

recreational boating, fishing, and hunting; and managing wetlands, wildlife, and rare, threatened, 

endangered, and species of concern. CDFW office with responsibility for Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin is the Bay Delta Region in Napa, California.

Non-Government Agencies and Organizations

Universities

Universities often have cooperative research interests in DOD lands and can be contracted to 

provide technical support in natural resources management and technical expertise on specific 

resource issues. Seventeen universities and research institutions along with nine federal agencies 

(including DOD) compose the Californian Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CA-CESU). The 

host institution for the CA-CESU is the University of California at Berkeley. The mission of the CACESU is “to provide research, technical assistance and education across the biological, physical, 

social, and cultural sciences to address natural and cultural resource management issues at multiple 

scales and in an ecosystem context in California and nationally as appropriate” (CA-CESU 2004). 

The CA-CESU was established in July 2003 through a cooperative agreement. Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin has access to any of the partners in the CA-CESU and can acquire their 

technical assistance through a task agreement.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

6 | May 2018

Contractors

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin uses contractors for many programs and activities 

associated with natural resources and NEPA. Contracted actions involving natural resources can 

include wetland mitigation plans, cultural resources evaluations, environmental assessments for 

access improvements, wetland delineation reports, Installation Restoration Program activities, and 

analytical/environmental assessment reports for the installation master plan.

Other Interested Parties

Various national and local organizations and groups can assist in the implementation of the INRMP. 

These groups and organizations include The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, the Sierra 

Club, Ducks Unlimited, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, hunting and fishing clubs, school districts, and 

local residents.

1.6 Integration with Other Plans

The installation’s comprehensive management planning process should incorporate the concerns 

presented in this INRMP so that the growth of the installation can progress in a manner consistent 

with, and complementary to, the objectives of DLA with respect to the protection of natural 

resources.

Regional Plans

• California Wildlife Action Plan: DOD and DLA encourage support of state wildlife action plans 

as part of a comprehensive installation natural resources program. Consequently, Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin should consult frequently with the regional CDFW office to 

determine areas where the installation can participate in future wildlife conservation 

partnerships with the CDFW or other cooperating agencies. The 2015 Draft California State 

Wildlife Action Plan “establishes a strategic vision of the integrated conservation efforts 

needed to sustain the tremendous diversity of wildlife resources found in the state” (CDFW 

2015). Projects in the INRMP support the State Wildlife Action Plan’s primary goals of wildlife 

conservation.

• San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan: The San 

Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan provides a 

strategy for balancing open space conservation and development while protecting the 

region’s natural, economic, and social resources with a particular emphasis on listed species 

under the Endangered Species Act or the California Endangered Species Act (SJMSCP 

2000).

• City of Tracy Sustainability Action Plan: The City of Tracy developed the Sustainability Action 

Plan which defines a long-range strategy focused on the sustainability of the community 

meant to achieve sustainability in greenhouse gas emissions, energy, transportation and 

land use, solid waste, water, agriculture and open space, biological resources, air quality, 

public health, and economic development (City of Tracy 2011a). 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 7

Installation Plans

The following installation plans were reviewed to highlight key interrelationships, and 

recommendations contained within these plans were used to develop this INRMP. Note that the 

INRMP is not intended to compile detailed information on each plan and its contents. 

• Real Property Master Plan: The Master Plan provides the Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin with an orderly and comprehensive guide for development to support its assigned 

mission over the next 20 years. The master plan was developed using a collaborative 

process with key personnel at the installation, and aligns with the installation’s mission, 

vision, values, and goals; and its real property vision, goals, and objectives for future 

development, as established by decision makers (DLA 2013a).

• Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP): The IPMP provides guidance for implementing a 

pest management program at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin and promotes 

nonchemical controls for managing pests and includes management recommendations for a 

wide variety of pests (DLA 2016). 

• Sustainability Plan: The Sustainability Plan is intended to assist with the installation’s current 

efforts to meet or exceed relevant Federal mandates regarding sustainability. The 

Sustainability Plan identifies goals, objectives, and action plans that provide a strategy to 

meet the installation’s sustainability goals within the constraints of available staff and funding 

(DLA 2013d).

• Pollution Prevention Plan: The Depot pollution prevention policy includes the development 

and implementation of a structured program that integrates pollution source reduction 

alternatives, including process modification, product substitution, and equipment 

modification, that will yield the highest possible waste reduction levels (DLA 2014c). 

• Hazardous Waste Management Plan: This Hazardous Waste Management Plan prescribes 

responsibilities, policies, and procedures for accumulating and managing hazardous waste at 

the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DLA 2014b).

• Cultural Resources Compliance Documentation: The Depot has an Integrated Cultural 

Resources Management Plan variance because of the absence of archaeological sites and 

historic properties. A Historic Resources Survey was completed in 2012 (DLA 2012b) and a 

report was created in 2015 that summarizes all of the efforts the Depot has undertaken to 

document the absence of cultural resources on site.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

8 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 9

2 Location and Mission

Current and historic information pertaining to land uses at the Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin and in surrounding communities is necessary to manage natural resources and assess 

future management activities properly. This section describes the location of the Depot and the 

surrounding communities and describes the natural resources associated with each area. A brief 

history of the installation and its current missions are also presented.

2.1 Location and Area

The Depot is located in San Joaquin County on the southeast side of Tracy, California, which is 20 

miles southeast of Stockton, California (Figure 1). The operational portion comprises 448 acres of 

developed area which is directly south of the Depot Annex which comprises 460 acres of agricultural 

land (Figure 2). The Annex is bordered by Banta Road to the east, and 11th Street to the north. Two 

major railroad lines intersect at the eastern corner of the Depot. Union Pacific tracks are located 

parallel to the northern and southeastern boundaries of the Depot. The extreme majority of the 

Depot area is occupied by warehouses, small buildings, graveled areas, asphalt, or concrete. 

Landscaped areas within the Depot are very limited with the majority of landscaped areas near the 

Child Development Center at the center of the Depot and the recreational fields in the northwest 

corner of the Depot.

2.2 Installation History

During the early 1870s, Southern Pacific Railroad founded the City of Tracy and developed it as a 

maintenance and supply facility for trains moving to and from the San Francisco Bay Area. In 1940, 

the current rail lines (Southern Pacific and Western Pacific) were located in the same general 

location as the present day rail lines and the area was generally used as farmland which was 

associated with a few rural residences and associated outbuildings. In 1942, the installation was 

founded as a “sub depot” of the United States Army’s Quartermaster Corps, Oakland Army Depot 

and by the late 1950s, the Depot had been developed at its current location with a rail yard, storage 

yard, rows of warehouses, open storage areas, office buildings, and a sewage treatment plant. In 

1963, operational control of the Depot was transferred to DLA, though DA retains ownership of the 

property. Adjacent land use remained largely agricultural until the 1990s at which point residential 

areas began to be developed adjacent to the Depot. In 1990, DOD reorganization placed all supply 

depots under operation of DLA. The current Depot and its sister site (Sharpe) were consolidated in 

1990, and Defense Distribution Region West (DDRW) was formed with headquarters at the Sharpe 

Site. DDRW oversaw DLA supply facilities throughout the western states. In 1993, the Depot Annex 

was acquired. In 1997, DDRW and Defense Distribution Region East were consolidated into 

Defense Distribution Center, headquartered in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania (DLA 2012a). In 

2014, DLA discontinued activities at the Sharpe Site and several of the functions of that site were 

transferred to the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, Tracy Site.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

10 | May 2018

Figure 1. Regional Location of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 11

Figure 2. Location of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

12 | May 2018

2.3 Current Military Missions

The primary mission of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin is storage, shipping, packaging, and 

maintenance of general supplies in support of the United States Armed Forces defense mission 

(DLA 2012a). The heavy Distribution Division handles bulk storage and distribution of items greater 

than 1.6 cubic feet or more than 15 pounds while the Light Distribution Division stores and 

distributes smaller items. Approximately 3,400 line items are received each day; approximately 

58,000 line items are shipped. Almost 40 trucks a day operate to and from the five Light Distribution 

Division buildings. The Stock Positioning Division is responsible for ensuring that the various types 

of stock are situated in the most effective place for future distribution/storage. Additionally, 13 DLA

tenants are located on the Depot, the most significant of which are USACE, Child Development 

Center, DLA Disposition Services, U.S. Army Public Health Command, U.S. Army Medical Materiel 

Command, and ASO formerly Wolverine Services (DLA 2013a).

2.4 Surrounding Communities 

Surrounding communities include those within the City of Tracy and the unincorporated area of San 

Joaquin County. Railroad tracks divide the Depot from the Annex and form the southeastern 

boundary of the Depot. Residential land uses, including City of Tracy and Rural unincorporated San 

Joaquin County, are adjacent to the west and southwest, respectively, of the Depot, across 

Chrisman Road (City of Tracy 2011b, San Joaquin County 2010). The remaining properties adjacent 

to the Depot and Annex are in unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County and are designated 

primarily as agricultural, except for a small area of industrial land use immediately east of the Depot 

at the crossroads of the Union Pacific and California Northern railroads (City of Tracy 2011b, San 

Joaquin County 2014, DLA 2014a).

2.5 Local and Regional Natural Areas

Having a general understanding of the Natural Resource and Recreation Management Areas of the 

region is important to management of natural resources at the Depot. This understanding is needed 

because it provides the background for making ecological assessments and developing 

management goals and objectives. The adaptive management/ecological approach used in this 

INRMP require a basic understanding of the ecological systems of which the lands of the Depot are 

a part. Physical (e.g., soil, water, air) and biological (e.g., genetic) systems cross installation 

boundaries and therefore must be evaluated at a proper scale. 

The San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge lies 15 miles to the southeast of the Depot. It is a 

7,000-acre Refuge situated where the Tuolumne, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Rivers join and is 

home several listed species. Four County Regional Parks are also in the area and they mainly offer 

recreational access to nearby rivers. The Mossdale Crossing Regional Park is located eight miles 

northeast of the Depot and offers picnic areas in addition to access to the San Joaquin, Middle, and 

Old Rivers. Also along the San Joaquin River is the Dos Reis Regional Park located 12 miles 

northeast of the Depot which offers access to the San Joaquin River and camping. The Del Valle 

Regional Park is located 25 miles southwest. The Brushy Peak Regional Preserve is a 1,833-acre 

preserve located 30 miles west of the Depot. The Caswell Memorial State Park is 20.5 miles east of 

the Depot and is situated along the Stanislaus River providing habitat for the riparian brush rabbit 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 13

and several other endangered species along with an example of riparian oak woodlands, a 

vegetation community of conservation concern in California. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

14 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 15

3 Environmental Management Strategy and 

Mission Sustainability

3.1 Supporting Sustainability of the Military Mission and the 

Natural Environment

DLAI 4108 (DLA 2009a) establishes policies, processes, and procedures necessary for effective 

natural and cultural resources management programs on lands under DLA control in the United 

States. Furthermore, DLAI 4108 requires that all DLA lands with natural and/or cultural resources 

shall develop and maintain an INRMP and/or Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan 

(ICRMP) as required. This instruction identifies responsibilities for adherence to the INRMP and 

ICRMP implementation process. 

AR 200-1 requires each installation to have designated (in writing) natural resources managers, who 

are knowledgeable and trained in the particular resource issues for that area or region. At Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin, environmental office staff are responsible for ensuring natural 

resources on the installation are managed as required by federal, state, and Army regulation and 

guidance. Natural resources managers can call upon other environmental professionals within DLA, 

and USAEC, to assist in the management of natural resources. Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin environmental personnel will integrate environmental protection, conservation, 

enhancement/restoration, and outdoor recreation within the constraints of the installation’s military 

mission; at the same time, they will identify risks to the environment that might result from military 

activities and assist with the development of alternatives to reduce or eliminate the potential impacts. 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin does not anticipate changes in land use and development 

in the near future; however, the installation is well-positioned to implement and demonstrate 

environmentally sound land use planning and development through its land planning and NEPA 

processes, inter-departmental coordination, adherence to DOD and DA guidance and regulations, 

and timely review and update of installation site development plans. Development that occurs will be 

routine and flexible to preserve the natural environment. In addition, DA policy requires that all 

military construction projects meet a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) silver 

rating under the U.S. Green Building Council LEED 2.0 Green Building Rating System (U.S. Army 

2007). All land use changes and development plans for the near-term and long-term are outlined in 

the Real Property Master Plan (DLA 2013a). 

3.2 Management Strategy

A past trend in management has been to select and manage a single species based on their 

perceived importance, either as products or commodities, or their status as threatened or 

endangered species. While this approach can be successful in some instances, single-species 

management, whether a commercially valuable tree species or an endangered bird, has severe 

limitations recognized by the scientific and natural resources community. The health of a single 

species seldom acts as a good surrogate for the health of an entire ecosystem. This type of 

management often favors a handful of species at the expense of overall ecosystem health. 

Ecosystem management is a process that considers the environment as a complex system 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

16 | May 2018

functioning as a whole, not as a collection of parts, and recognizes that people and their social and 

economic needs are a part of the whole. The ecosystem management approach has the overarching 

goal of protecting the properties and functions of natural ecosystems. Over the long term, this 

approach will maintain and improve the sustainability and biological diversity of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems while supporting sustainable economies and communities. 

The Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin natural resources management program is based on 

the premise that responsible stewardship and ecosystem management are synonymous and 

compatible with integrated natural resources management. Implementation of any type of 

management activity whose impacts are not fully understood will be tied directly to implementation of 

a corresponding monitoring program. The intent is to integrate management activities with ongoing 

scientific monitoring to provide reliable data and identify trends and causal relationships including 

both positive and negative impacts of management activities. Acceptable levels or thresholds of 

management intensity will be identified for different species, taxa, ecosystems, and associations. 

The management guidelines and prescriptions in the installation INRMP will be revised periodically 

as site-specific data become available. The INRMP is developed to provide ongoing management 

direction based on scientific data and a higher level of knowledge of the installation’s ecosystems 

and their inter-relationships. The long-term goal of this INRMP is to bring together and integrate all 

management activities (e.g., watershed and wildlife management) in a way that sustains, promotes, 

and restores the health and integrity of the ecosystems. Integrated ecosystem management is sound 

stewardship, and will, over the long term, ensure the maximum return of ecosystems goods and 

services at minimum cost to the installation. 

3.3 Natural Resources Program Management Strategy

Ecosystem management calls for enhanced efforts to understand complexity, open up to new ideas 

and challenges, and incorporate a broad diversity of perspectives into thoughtful, multidisciplinary 

management. Managers know enough about broad patterns of ecological systems to initiate wellconsidered management plans in an experimental fashion, monitor early results of those plans, and 

then modify them as more information accumulates. This process is known as adaptive 

management. Adaptive management is more than just monitoring effectiveness of management 

actions. It requires that the assumptions underlying a management approach, and expected 

outcome, be made explicit before action is taken. Adaptive management involves establishing 

hypotheses and a framework for analyzing differences between expected and observed outcomes. 

Adaptive management is also about experimentation and probing ecosystems to understand how 

they operate. The natural resources manager is not just testing a specific management approach, 

but is also trying to understand the structure, patterns, and processes that sustain the ecosystem 

integrity. Over time, this knowledge enriches the foundation for management. Adaptive management 

helps ensure that an installation’s INRMP will not be a document on the shelf, but a framework for an 

ongoing management process. 

DOD Manual (DODM) 4715.03 and DOD Directive 4715.21 (DOD 2014) direct DOD installations to 

plan for and manage risks associated with the impacts of climate change. Adaptive management of 

natural resources also supports climate change adaptation and resilience. Adaptive natural 

resources management at the Depot should consider impacts from severe weather events such as 

prolonged drought leading to water supply scarcity and wildland fires. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 17

3.4 Natural Resources Compliance Requirements

Natural resources compliance focuses on maintaining compliance with major federal laws that affect 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin activities. A list of applicable laws is included in Appendix B. 

The following paragraphs discuss the most relevant laws to natural resources management on the 

installation:

Endangered Species Act. Federal agencies are required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

(16 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 1531 et seq.) to manage federally listed threatened, endangered, 

and species of concern and their habitat in a manner that promotes conservation of them and is 

consistent with species recovery plans. Section 7 of the ESA requires all federal agencies to enter 

into consultation with the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service whenever proposed 

actions might affect federally listed threatened, endangered, and species of concern plants and 

animals. At the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, proposed projects, operations, or other 

actions, are scrutinized for potential impacts on federally listed threatened, endangered, and species 

of concern through a formal review process. Section 7 consultations will be initiated if warranted, 

otherwise, written documentation that there are no effects on federally listed threatened, 

endangered, and species of concern will be generated by the natural resources manager and kept 

with the project files. The natural resources manager will use the installation’s INRMP as a tool to 

identify at an early stage the potential impacts of planned DLA actions on endangered or threatened 

species and to provide a basis for altering the action to prevent or minimize those impacts.

In order to minimize adverse effects to federally-listed species, USFWS could identify changes or 

additional minimization measures that could result in delays and additional costs. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended, 

implements treaties and conventions between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the 

former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. The MBTA made it illegal for people to 

“take” migratory birds, their eggs, feathers, or nests. Take is defined in the MBTA to include by any 

means or in any manner, any attempt at hunting, pursuing, wounding, killing, possessing or 

transporting any migratory bird, nest, egg, or part thereof. The USFWS should be contacted prior to 

undertaking activities which could lead to “take” of migratory birds.

Clean Water Act. The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants 

into waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The CWA made 

it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was 

obtained. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit program controls discharges.

3.5 Public Access and Outreach

The Sikes Act, as amended, and DODI 4715.03 encourage public access to DOD lands for the 

enjoyment and use of natural resources if such activity is compatible with the military mission and 

the ecosystem can support such use. Due to the nature of the military mission at Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin, security considerations require access to the installation to be 

restricted. Coupled with the limited natural areas available on the installation, there are minimal 

opportunities for outdoor recreation for the public, and opportunities are available only to installation 

personnel with permitted access to the restricted area.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

18 | May 2018

3.6 Natural Resources Constraints to Missions and Mission 

Planning 

Maintaining compliance with the numerous laws, policies, and regulations that provide protection of 

environmental elements and guidance for management of natural and cultural resources may create 

constraints to accomplishing the military mission. Constraints may limit certain activities by limiting or 

prohibiting access to restricted areas in order to preclude damage to important cultural and natural 

resources. Examples of constraints include known locations of federally listed and other special 

status species, areas preferentially managed for special status species, and areas with a regulatory 

driver (e.g., jurisdictional waters or migratory bird nest sites). 

As further discussed in Section 4.6.3, constraints at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin include 

the potential presence of special status species in the limited available habitat areas. 

3.7 Achieving No Net Loss of the Military Mission

Implementation of this INRMP by Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin will ensure that natural 

resources will continue to support the installation mission, and any future growth, or development 

activities planned for the installation. Supporting the elements contained within the INRMP will 

ensure that any future development is conducted in an environmentally sensitive way (i.e., smart 

growth). 

This INRMP strives to integrate natural resources management with other installation plans and 

activities. It also establishes drivers that represent a long-term vision for the health and quality of 

natural resources on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin. The INRMP drivers might be revised 

over time to reflect changing missions and environmental conditions. Any future changes in mission, 

activity, or technology should be analyzed to assess their impacts on natural resources. As new 

guidance and regulations from DOD and DLA are developed, they will be integrated with the drivers 

and management actions of this INRMP. The INRMP will be reviewed, assessed, and modified as 

needed on an annual basis to ensure continued integration with other management plans or 

changes in military mission. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 19

4 Existing Conditions

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin proposes to implement an INRMP, which supports the 

management of natural resources as described by the Plan itself. The following text describes the 

existing conditions of resources that are potentially affected by implementation of the INRMP (i.e., 

the Proposed Action). 

4.1 Land Use

The installation consists of 908 total acres. The original site, a triangular shaped area comprising 

448 acres of developed land and an additional 460 acres of land, known as the Annex (see Figure 

2). Land use categories at the installation include Industrial, Administrative, and Installation 

Maintenance and Support (DLA 2013a). Land uses are intended to describe the general 

development character of an area. Master Planning process aids in siting development and 

protection of natural resources. The following descriptions of land uses were derived from the Master 

Plan (DLA 2013a, DLA 2014a).

• Industrial. Industrial land use consists of warehousing, transportation, and light industrial 

activities and encompasses most of the installation except for the northwestern corner (i.e., 

generally northwest of the intersection of Ennis Drive [A Street] and Medical Street).

• Administrative. Administrative functions such as general purpose offices, professional 

services, community services, and technical support facilities are located primarily at the 

northwestern corner of the Depot between Chrisman Road and Station Street, and at several 

small areas interspersed throughout the Industrial land uses in the remainder of the 

installation.

• Installation Maintenance and Support. Installation maintenance and support facilities such as 

maintenance, fire, safety, and utility operations are at the northwestern corner of the Depot 

adjacent to the east of the Administrative land uses. The installation is substantially built out 

with limited open spaces used for trailer storage, parking, and utility laydown yards.

• Agricultural. The 460 acres of the Annex is predominantly used for agriculture purposes 

(e.g., agricultural row crops). The Natural Resource Conservation Service classifies all soils 

at the installation as prime farmland, if irrigated, and the California Department of 

Conservation classifies the soils at the Depot as Prime Farmland and the soils at the Annex 

as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance (DLA 2013a). Developed areas within 

the Annex are limited to an environmental remediation system and a temporary (1-year) 

military effects tower (MET) which monitors weather conditions (see Photograph 1). The 

agricultural outlease on the Annex is administered by the USACE District, Sacramento.

The percent area for each designated land use zone is shown in Table 1.

4.2 Climate

The Mediterranean climate in San Joaquin County is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, 

moist winters. The Sierra Nevada Range moderates the county from the continental climatic 

extremes that are experienced to the east. Conversely, the Coast Range moderates the effects of 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

20 | May 2018

moisture-laden weather systems from the Pacific Ocean. The summertime is generally hot and dry 

because a persistent high-pressure area offshore blocks most weather systems from entering the 

region. However, a southward shift of the high-pressure area in winter allows weather systems to 

enter the county, producing cool, moist weather and frequent heavy fogs (USDA 1992). The average 

annual air temperature is 61 degrees Fahrenheit with the annual high temperature at 75 degrees 

and annual low at 47 degrees. The average annual precipitation is 13.05 inches with the highest 

amount of rainfall received during January through March (NCDC 2015); most of the rainfall occurs 

at low- or moderate-intensity. Drought is currently a significant weather pattern that has settled 

across the entire state of California for the last several years. The prevailing wind flows at an 

average speed of 10 miles per hour, primarily from the west in the summer, and from the southeast 

in the winter (DLA 2012a).

Photograph 1. Agricultural Land Use at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin 

Annex

Table 1. Summary of Existing Land Uses at Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin

Land Use Acres Percent of Acres

Industrial 380 42

Administrative 27 3

Installation Maintenance and Support 41 4

Agricultural 460 51

Total 908 100

Source: DLA 2013a
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 21

Climate Change 

The State of California has led the country over the past 25 years on actions to reduce impacts from 

climate change by developing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions including the 

passage of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006. This Bill requires that California reduce its GHG emissions to 

1990 levels by 2020 which is a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected 

under the current operating scenario. In 2015, the California Environmental Protection Agency 

published the Climate Change Research Plan for California. This plan is meant to continue support 

for climate policy and enhances statewide research collaboration for policy issues unique to 

California (CalEPA 2015).

DODI 4715.03 requires the INRMP to assess the potential impacts of climate change on natural 

resources and to adaptively manage such resources to minimize adverse mission impacts. DLA is 

reducing its GHG emissions in accordance with DOD goals. The Depot is actively working towards 

the reduction of GHG emissions which are managed under the Environmental Branch by the Air 

Program Manager and the results are tracked by the Facilities and Engineering Branch’s Energy 

Manager. Goals supporting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be found in the 

Sustainability Plan (DLA 2013d) and the Pollution Prevention Plan (DLA 2014c).

4.3 Air Quality

The Depot is in San Joaquin County, California, which is within the San Joaquin Valley Intrastate air 

quality control region. San Joaquin County has been designated by the US Environmental Protection 

Agency as unclassified/attainment for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and carbon monoxide; 

maintenance for particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (previously serious 

nonattainment); nonattainment for particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter; 

and extreme nonattainment for 8-hour ozone (USEPA 2013). Because the Depot is not within the 

City of Stockton, the area affected is designated unclassified/attainment for carbon monoxide.

4.4 Geological Resources

The installation is near the west-central border of the San Joaquin Valley, which constitutes the 

southern region of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The San Joaquin Valley is a topographic 

and structural basin with the axis offset to the west and gently sloping to the north. It is bounded by 

the Sierra Nevada Range to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Sacramento River-San 

Joaquin River Delta to the north (DLA 2014a).

Geology

The Depot is located within the Tracy Sub-basin of the San Joaquin Valley Basin. This area is 

underlain by miles of sediment from adjacent uplands. The layers of clays, sands, silts, and gravel in 

the region strongly influence subsurface hydrology (USDA 2006). The lithological deposits at the 

Depot from the surface to a depth of 20 to 30 feet originated from materials eroded from the Diablo 

Range and carried east by streams or winds. These deposits are named the Younger Alluvium. Silt 

and clay layers occur most frequently in the interval from surface to 30 feet below ground surface. 

The shallow subsurface deposits are difficult to distinguish from the underlying deposits of Older 

Alluvium and the Upper Tulare Member of the Tulare Formation. The Tulare Formation, divided into 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

22 | May 2018

Upper, Middle, and Lower Members, consists of poorly sorted, discontinuous deposits of clay, silt, 

sand, and gravel (DLA 2012c). 

Topography

The Depot is located in the lower San Joaquin Valley which includes floodplains, alluvial fans, fan 

terraces, basins, dunes, low terraces, and high terraces. San Joaquin Valley slopes are generally 

level although some areas are undulating to hilly because of dissection and erosion (USDA 1992). 

On the Depot specifically, the area is characterized by mostly flat uplands which are sloping gently 

downward to the northeast towards the broad delta formed by the San Joaquin and Sacramento 

Rivers. The elevation ranges from 110 feet above sea level at the south corner to 45 feet at the 

northern boundary of the Annex (URS 2010). 

Soils

The Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Map for San Joaquin County depicts one 

soil series underlying the Depot and three soil series underlying the Annex (Figure 3). The 

predominant naturally occurring soils underlying the Depot are the Capay-Urban land complex while 

the Annex is mainly characterized by Capay clay, with localized areas of the El Solyo clay loam and 

Stomar clay loam. The Capay-Urban land complex associated with the Depot is almost entirely 

developed, but those areas still exposed at the surface are similar to those of Capay clay (USDA 

1992).

Urban Land. Urban land consists of areas covered by development. The soil material under the 

impervious surface is similar to that of the Capay clay, described below. The main limitations are the 

slow permeability, low strength, and the high shrink-swell potential.

Capay clay. The Capay soil is very deep and moderately well drained; however, the permeability is 

slow. It formed in alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. Typically, the surface layer is grayish 

brown and approximately 20 inches thick. The subsoil to a depth of 60 inches is grayish brown. In 

some areas, the surface layer is silty clay. The main limitations are the slow permeability, low 

strength, and the high shrink-swell potential. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent (USDA 1992).

El Solyo clay loam. The El Solyo clay loam is very deep, well drained, and nearly level on alluvial 

fans. It formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock sources. The surface layer is typically 

grayish brown clay loam approximately 10 inches thick. The subsoil is brown and pale brown silty 

clay loam to approximately 60 inches. Included in this soil are small areas of Stomar, Vernalis, and 

Zacharias soils on the slightly higher parts of the landscape. Permeability is slow, and the available 

water capacity is high with a high shrink-swell potential. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent (USDA 

1992).

Stomar clay loam. The Stomar clay loam is a very deep, well drained, nearly level soil on alluvial 

fans. It formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock sources. The surface layer is typically 

grayish brown clay approximately 17 inches thick. The upper 30 inches of the subsoil is brown clay 

loam and clay. Permeability is slow, available water capacity is very high, and the shrink-swell 

potential is high. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent (USDA 1992).
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 23

Geologic Hazards

Faults within the immediate vicinity of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin include the Midway, 

Black Butte, San Joaquin, and Vernalis. Other faults within 55 miles of the installation that have 

experienced historic displacement (i.e., within the past 200 years) include the Las Positas, Marsh 

Creek, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas (California DOC 2010). According to the U.S. 

Geological Survey, there is a 2 percent chance that an earthquake will occur in a 50-year period in 

the vicinity of the installation that would produce ground acceleration of 16 to 32 percent of the force 

of gravity. Due to its seismic and geologic conditions, the installation is subject to a moderate

potential for liquefaction and a moderate to high potential for expansive soils depending on the 

specific soil conditions and location. However, the soils near the City of Tracy, such as those at the 

installation, are not considered to be as susceptible to liquefaction because the near surface soils 

are predominantly clays or sands with high silt and clay content (San Joaquin County 2010).
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

24 | May 2018

Figure 3. Soil Map of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 25

4.5 Water Resources

The Depot is located in the major hydrologic unit area of San Joaquin and in the San Joaquin 

watershed (HUC8). The major hydrologic features surrounding the Depot include the Sacramento 

and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. A stretch of the American River below Folsom Lake 

has been designated as a National Wild and Scenic River. Two major canals are in the region: the 

state-owned California Aqueduct and the federal Delta-Mendota Canal. Both canals move water 

from California Delta to Buena Vista Lake near Bakersfield (USDA 2006).

Groundwater

Groundwater at the Depot occurs in surface alluvium and in the Upper and Lower Tulare Members 

which also serve as primary sources of fresh groundwater. The upper Tulare Member may be 

divided into four horizons consisting of sand, silty sand, clayey sand, and gravel layers, separated by 

layers of silt and clay. The depth to groundwater at the Depot ranges from approximately 10 feet 

below ground surface in its northeastern portion to over 40 feet below ground surface in its southern 

portion (URS 2010). The groundwater at the Depot is generally unconfined. Generally, groundwater 

historically flowed in a northeast direction. Variations in groundwater flow directions due to 

influences from groundwater extraction, changes in the horizontal and vertical gradients, and/or 

seasonal groundwater recharge have caused the flow to be towards the north to northeast direction 

(DLA 2012c). The annual peak groundwater levels occur during the third quarter. The Depot is 

classified as a non-transient, non-community drinking water system with no connection to the City of 

Tracy’s water system. The primary source of water for the Depot is from three on-site ground water 

wells. This water is used for both domestic use and fire suppression activities. The Depot operates 

one groundwater remediation project that is discussed in more detail in the Depot Environmental

Baseline Report, Sections 3.4 and Appendices F and G (DLA 2012a) and in the annual monitoring 

reports. 

Surface Water

Surface water resources include lakes, rivers, streams, and drainage ditches and are important for a 

variety of reasons including their significant role in determining historical migratory and settlement 

patterns of virtually all mammals, including humans; their influence on nesting and migratory 

activities of many bird species; their contribution to the evolution of landforms through their roles in 

the erosion process; and their effects on critical global systems including rain patterns, global 

temperature changes, and oxygen provision for the atmosphere. These functions and processes 

have obvious economic, ecological, recreational, and human health implications.

There are no naturally occurring surface water resources on the Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin. The principal drainages near the Depot are the Tom Payne Slough north of the Depot, 

Corral Hollow Creek to its south, and the San Joaquin River, into which both the Slough and the 

Creek flow, several miles east of the Depot. Surface water runoff from within the Depot is collected 

in drains that lead to the unlined stormwater detention pond located in the northwest corner of the 

Depot. Water evaporates or infiltrates into the ground beneath the unlined detention pond and 

migrates toward the water table. If the stormwater discharge pond levels exceed its capacity, the 

stormwater is pumped and discharged to an offsite canal (DLA 2012a). On the Annex, unlined 

ditches convey stormwater runoff to local percolation areas between farm fields (DLA 2012c).
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

26 | May 2018

Water quality changes in the surface drainages could occur during storms, and runoff from the built 

areas could result in erosion. Increase in sedimentation might occur during construction; however, 

the use of best management practices (BMPs) to minimize soils from leaving the site ameliorates 

any potential impacts that could occur. Hazardous materials are managed according to all applicable 

regulations and, therefore, should not affect water quality.

Floodplains

The Depot does not fall within a federally regulated floodplain. Per the California Department of 

Water Resources Awareness Floodplain Maps, the Depot is not within an Awareness Floodplain 

(100-year flood hazard area). The closest designated Awareness Floodplain is 1 mile south of the 

Depot. The intent of the Awareness Floodplain Mapping project is to identify all pertinent flood 

hazard areas for areas not mapped under the Federal Emergency Management Agency National 

Flood Insurance Program and to provide the community and residents an additional tool in 

understanding potential flood hazards in areas not currently mapped as a regulated floodplain.

4.6 Biological Resources

Vegetation

Historic Vegetative Cover

Prior to human development, the area of the Depot would have been characterized by a California 

perennial grassland comprised of native bunchgrasses such as purple needle grass (Nassella

pulchra). These grasslands stand approximately three feet tall with fairly continuous cover. They 

would have been tolerant of both grazing and fire which were important disturbance regimes in 

maintaining these grasslands (Buck-Diaz et al. 2012). Tree and shrub cover in the area would have 

been low and confined to natural waterways and drainages where low shrubs would have provided 

the dominant vegetative cover.

Current Vegetative Cover

The Depot is largely developed and has little vegetative cover and even less native vegetative cover. 

There have been two biological surveys conducted on the Depot (1999 and 2012). These surveys 

documented isolated areas of vegetation that would be generally described as nonnative annual 

grasslands. Most of this vegetation is located in the northern and northwestern end of the Depot. 

These areas are dominated by various brome species (Bromus ssp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon

dactylon), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and field mustard (Brassica rapa). There is a 

large man-made stormwater retention pond located in the northern area of the Depot. Although this 

pond is part of a stormwater management system with artificially introduced hydrology, it supports 

some wetland plant species such as broadleaf cattail (Typha sp.), rabbitfoot (Polypogon sp.), and 

curly dock (Rumex crispus) (USDA 1999). The Annex is dominated by agricultural crops that vary 

from year to year and also harbors several invasive herbaceous species such as those listed above 

(DLA 2013b). The 2012 survey identified six vegetation associations (see Figure 4). The six 

associations are as follows:

• Developed lands comprise approximately 401 acres of the Depot within the fenced 

boundary. Developed lands include building footprints, roadways, and parking lots. These 

areas are devoid of vegetation and provide very little habitat for wildlife. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 27

Figure 4. Vegetation Classification at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

28 | May 2018

• Agricultural lands comprise 466 acres of the Annex outside of the fenced boundary of the 

distribution depot along the northern end of the installation. This area is used for cultivation 

of crops such as alfalfa and safflower. Agricultural lands provide suitable foraging habitat for 

many birds, reptiles, and mammals.

• Annual grasslands make up approximately 2 acres of the installation, occurring on the 

eastern end of the fenced portion of the Depot and the southeastern portion of the Annex. 

Common species within these areas include Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon); various 

Brome species (Bromus sp.); and forbs such as yellow starthistle, field mustard (Bassia

scoparia) and various Erodium species. Although the vegetative cover is sparse and 

dispersed, this area is used by many wildlife species, including black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus

californicus) and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii).

• Landscaped areas make up approximately 9 acres of the Depot in northern and 

northwestern and southwestern portions of the Depot (see Photograph 2). These areas have 

nonnative ornamental trees and shrubs. Some of the common species include redwood 

(Sequoia sempervirens), maple (Acer sp.), alder (Alnus sp.), Tasmanian bluegum 

(Eucalyptus globulus), and annual bluegrass (Poa annua). The landscaped areas are used 

by a wide variety of wildlife species including migratory birds, songbirds, raptors, and small 

mammals.

Photograph 2. Landscaped Areas at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

• Evaporation/Percolation Basins occur on approximately 9 acres in the northwestern portion 

of the Depot, near building 100. The evaporation / percolation basins consist of three artificial 

freshwater marsh habitats. Common species in this area include Fremont cottonwood 

(Populus fremontii), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), various willow species (Salix sp.), 

Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne), rabbitfoot (Polypogon sp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), 

and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Although this site does not contain permanent water, it 

provides foraging and nesting habitat for small mammals and migratory songbirds, 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 29

shorebirds, and waterfowl. This area also has a large number of feral cats (Felis catus). See 

Section 4.6.1 for details on the retention pond. 

• Bare land covers about 25 acres in the northern, eastern and southern portions of the fenced 

Depot. These areas are heavily disturbed by vehicular traffic. These areas have very sparse, 

low vegetative cover and are of little value for wildlife.

• Non-native Woodland consists of approximately 1 acre directly outside of the eastern end of 

the fenced portion of the Depot. This area is surrounded by railroad tracks and is dominated 

by dense stands of the non-native plant species giant cane (Arundo donax) and tree of 

heaven (Ailanthus altissima). 

Wildlife

The Depot consists mainly of disturbed lands and small, fragmented annual grasslands which 

provide limited habitat value for wildlife. There are no sources of perennial water on the Depot, 

resulting in no habitat for fish. The areas that have the potential to offer habitat to wildlife include the 

large water treatment retention basin, the baseball field and picnic area, and the agricultural fields in 

the Annex. Wildlife species were also commonly observed in the landscaped parks located in the 

northwestern corner of the Depot. The area of the Depot other than the Annex is surrounded by a 

chain-linked fence with razor wire at the top. Gates are rarely open to allow for large wildlife to enter 

the Depot; however, several drainage ditches and culverts have the potential to allow for passage of 

smaller wildlife. As a result, wildlife species likely to occur are adapted to disturbed environments 

and industrial settings. 

Baseline biological surveys conducted in 2012 documented 56 species of wildlife including 44 bird 

species, eight mammal species, two reptile species, and two amphibian species. A complete list of 

the wildlife species observed is provided in Appendix E.

Reptiles and Amphibians 

The retention basins in the northern portion of the Depot provide habitat for common amphibians 

such as the Pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla) and the nonnative bullfrog (Lithobates

catesbeianus). Pacific treefrogs were also observed throughout the landscaped area using cones, 

wood pallets and other objects as cover. The agricultural Annex in the unfenced, northern portion of 

the installation also provides suitable foraging and resting habitat for reptiles and amphibians. During 

the 2012 surveys, a gopher snake (Pitouphis catenifer catenifer) was observed under railroad ties 

stacked along the edge of one of the fields. 

Fish

No suitable habitat for fish is present on the Depot. There are no naturally occurring surface water 

resources, and surface water runoff from within the Depot is collected in drains that lead to the 

unlined stormwater detention pond located in the northwest corner of the Depot. No incidental 

observations of fish have been reported and surveys have not been conducted.

Birds

The retention basins along the northern edge of the depot are suitable foraging habitats for various 

waterfowl and shorebirds including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American avocet (Recurvirostra

americana), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), American coots (Fulica americana), green 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

30 | May 2018

heron (Butorides virescens), and great egret (Ardea alba). During surveys in 2012, great horned 

owls (Bubo virginianus) were observed nesting in trees in the landscaped park. Other birds also use 

these landscaped areas for foraging, cover, and possibly for nesting. The agricultural Annex in the 

unfenced, northern portion of the installation also provides suitable foraging and resting habitat for 

birds, as well as breeding habitat for burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) as discussed in Section 

4.6.3. Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni), and American 

kestrels (Falco sparverius) were observed hunting, as well as perching on trees throughout the 

fields. Many migratory birds also forage in this area, including California horned larks and western 

meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta).

Mammals

The retention basins provide foraging habitat and a seasonal water source for bats. Other mammals 

such as the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) 

also use these landscaped areas for foraging and cover. The agricultural Annex in the unfenced, 

northern portion of the installation also provides suitable foraging and resting habitat for mammals; a 

coyote (Canis latrans) was observed in these fields. Biologists also observed Mexican free-tailed 

bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) and a Myotis species day roosting in the roofing of a structure on the 

Depot. During night surveys, Mexican free-tailed bats, Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), big brown 

bats (Eptesicus fuscus), and pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) were also observed.

Special Status Species

Special status species include species that are federally listed by USFWS as endangered, 

threatened, or candidates; California state-listed endangered, threatened, candidate, or species of 

special concern (SSC); birds on the Federal Birds of Conservation Concern list; and plants identified 

by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as rare or threatened. Raptors (i.e., hawks, falcons, 

kites, eagles, vultures and owls) are also considered special status animals because they are 

protected under state law (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513, 

and California CFR, Title 14, §§ 251.1, 652 and 783-786.6). Migratory birds are protected species 

under the MBTA as discussed in Section 4.6.3.1.

The ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) requires federal agencies to manage federally listed threatened 

and endangered species and their habitat in a manner that promotes conservation of those species 

and is consistent with species recovery plans. Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to 

enter into consultation with USFWS when a proposed action may affect a listed threatened or 

endangered species. Under ESA, “take” of federally listed wildlife is defined as to harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to do so. Harm includes the 

destruction of habitat. 

32 CFR § 651 requires an environmental assessment for activities affecting federally-listed species. 

AR 200-1 mandates protection of species that are candidates for ESA listing and state-listed 

species, and installations are to avoid activities that would result in the listing of these species. Other 

special status species are considered in management planning to reduce the potential of their state 

or federal listing. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 31

Fauna

No federally listed wildlife species have been observed; however, the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes

macrotis mutica) is the most likely of the federally listed species to occur at Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin. There are four CDFW SSC and one state-threatened bird species that have 

been documented within 5 miles of the Depot: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); California horned 

lark (Eremophila alpestris actia); Swainson’s hawk; song sparrow (Melospiza melodia); and 

tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). As of September 2015, the tricolored blackbird is under 

review by the USFWS after a 90 day finding that formal listing on the ESA may be warranted. Two 

CDFW SSC mammals, one federal- and state-endangered mammal, and one federal-endangered 

and state-threatened mammal have been documented within 5 miles of the Depot: American badger 

(Taxidea taxus); riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius); San Joaquin kit fox; and San 

Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus). Additionally, one federally and statethreatened amphibian, the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), and one CDFW 

SSC invertebrate, Sacramento anthicid beetle (Anthicus sacramento), have been documented within 

5 miles of the Depot. 

There are state-listed species, migratory birds, and plant species of concern at Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin that are not provided species-specific management but are taken into 

consideration when developing land management actions and priorities. 

Table 2 presents the special status animal and plant species that have been observed or have the 

potential to occur at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin.

Table 2. Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur on Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Species Status Habitat Observed 

on Site? Comments

BIRDS

Burrowing owl

(Athene

cunicularia)

CDFW 

SSC, 

BCC

Burrows around short 

vegetation with only sparse 

shrubs and taller vegetation. 

Along roadsides and water 

conveyance structures 

surrounded by crops.

Yes One breeding pair observed in 

2011; None observed in 2012; 

Observed in 2013 and 2014 

nesting on the edge of the 

Annex; none observed nesting 

in 2015.

California horned 

lark

(Eremophila

alpestris actia)

CDFW 

SSC,

PIF

Open grasslands, nesting in 

hollows on the ground.

Yes Observed on Annex in medium 

sized flock, during April 

surveys.

Tricolored blackbird

(Agelaius tricolor)

CDFW 

SSC, 

BCC,

PIF

Cattails, bulrushes, Himalaya 

blackberry (Rubus discolor), 

and agricultural silage.

No This species could potentially 

occur in or near open water, 

but needs consistent presence 

of water during nesting 

season.

Swainson’s hawk

(Buteo swainsoni)

ST Permanent waterways with 

continuous canopy of trees and 

grassland understory near 

irrigated pasture, alfalfa or 

grainfields.

Yes Observed in 2012 foraging at 

the Depot.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

32 | May 2018

Table 2. Special Status Species with the Potential to Occur on Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Species Status Habitat Observed 

on Site? Comments

Song sparrow -

Modesto population

(Melospiza

melodia)

CDFW 

SSC

Moderately dense vegetation, 

a source of standing or running 

water, semi-open canopies, 

and exposed ground or leaf 

litter.

No

MAMMALS

American badger 

(Taxidea taxus)

CDFW 

SSC

Burrowing in friable soils. Most 

abundant in drier open stages 

of most shrub, forest, and 

herbaceous habitats.

No Usually avoids developed and 

agricultural areas, but has the 

potential to occur in the area.

Riparian brush 

rabbit (Sylvilagus

bachmani riparius)

FE,

SE

Dense brush and nearby 

openings associated with 

riparian areas.

No Occurs almost exclusively on 

the banks of the Stanislaus 

and San Joaquin Rivers.

San Joaquin kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis

mutica)

FE, 

ST

Semi-desert areas as well as 

arid and alkaline foothills.

No Most likely to occur in dense 

brush or riparian areas; 

however, can occur in or near 

urban and agricultural areas, 

as well as grasslands.

San Joaquin pocket 

mouse 

(Perognathus

inornatus inornatus)

CDFW 

SSC

Friable soils in grasslands and 

blue oak savannas.

No No natural grasslands or oak 

savannas on the Depot.

AMPHIBIANS

California tiger 

salamander 

(Ambystoma

californiense)

Central California 

DPS*

FT, 

ST

Grasslands, temporary pools 

(such as vernal pools or stock 

ponds) for successful 

reproduction.

No This species occurs along the 

eastern edge of San Joaquin 

County in the Vernal Pool 

Zone and inter-digitated 

natural habitats of the Central 

Zone.

INVERTEBRATES

Sacramento 

anthicid beetle 

(Anthicus

sacramento)

CDFW 

SSC

Sand dunes along the lower 

Sacramento River.

No Sand dunes are not present on 

the Depot.

Source: CNDDB 2015, DLA 2013b

Notes: 

FE – Federally or state-listed endangered species

FT – Federally or state-listed threatened species

SE – State endangered

ST – State threatened

CDFW SSC – California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern

DPS – Distinct Population Segment

BCC – USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern

PIF – Partners in Flight Species of Continental Importance
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 33

San Joaquin Kit Fox

The San Joaquin kit fox was listed as a federally endangered species in 1967 (Federal Register 

32:4001). A recovery plan was developed in 1993 and updated in 1998; the latest USFWS 5-Year 

Review was completed in 2010 (USFWS 1998; USFWS 2010). The San Joaquin kit fox has also 

been listed as a state threatened species in California since 1971. The Tracy area is near the 

northern most extent of its documented range within the San Joaquin Valley floor where fewer fox 

have been observed, suggesting a pattern of declining presence (USFWS 2010). No critical habitat 

has been designated for this species. Locally, the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat 

Conservation and Open Space Plan addresses County development as it relates to San Joaquin kit 

fox habitat (SJMSCP 2000).

The San Joaquin kit fox has an average size of 20 inches and weighs approximately 5 pounds. They 

have long legs, a black-tipped tail, white stomach, and large ears. They range in color from a tan to 

yellowish-grey. This slight fox is primarily nocturnal and utilizes subsurface dens. Its diet is 

comprised of small rodents, rabbits, hares, ground-nesting birds, and at times, insects.

Their home range can amount to thousands of acres depending on prey availability. The closest 

documented occurrence to the Depot is approximately 2 miles away (CNDDB 2015); therefore, the 

chance that the fox could use the Depot as a transient exists. The San Joaquin kit fox occurs in a 

variety of habitats such as subshrub scrub, oak woodland, grasslands, and agriculture (USFWS 

2010). Habitat at the Depot that has the most potential for the fox includes the agricultural Annex as 

well as the small grassland remnants adjacent to the Annex. Most likely, the fox would be passing 

through the Depot on the way to more suitable habitat or in an effort to use the area for foraging; 

however, agricultural lands provide suboptimal foraging habitat for the kit fox when not adjacent to 

optimal habitat (Clark et al. 2005; Cypher et al. 2005; Warrick et al. 2007; USFWS 2010). 

Conversion of suitable habitat to agriculture is the primary cause of habitat loss for the San Joaquin 

kit fox in the San Joaquin Valley (Cypher et al. 2007). However, infrequent irrigation and limited use 

of chemicals and pesticides could increase suitability of agricultural habitat depending on the size of 

the parcel, existing habitat conditions, availability of existing prey, and proximity to kit fox occurrence 

(Cypher 2006; USFWS 2010). No formal surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox have been conducted at 

the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin but due to the close proximity of a documented kit fox 

occurrence (2 miles), surveys are recommended (see Section 5.2.1). Survey protocols (USFWS 

1999), standardized recommendations for protection prior to or during ground disturbance, and a 

habitat evaluation form (USFWS 2001) are available on the CDFW survey and monitoring protocols 

and guidelines website.

Burrowing Owl

Burrowing owls are a CDFW SSC that have been documented on the Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin Annex in past surveys (DLA 2011b). The western burrowing owl inhabits open 

grasslands and shrublands in the Central Valley, coastal regions, and deserts of California (see 

Photograph 3). They live and breed in burrows created by badgers and ground squirrels. They occur 

in a patchy distribution throughout San Joaquin County, but recent studies have shown a decline of 

more than 50 percent in the number of breeding pairs in the Central Valley (SJMSCP 2000).

This species is protected under the MBTA and is a CDFW Species of Special Concern, which is a 

species that has declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats making them 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

34 | May 2018

vulnerable to extinction. There is concern that the burrowing owl could become a federally listed 

species; therefore, proactive conservation actions are recommended to support burrowing owls in 

the region in order to avoid the potential for listing.

In June 2011, two adult burrowing owls and up to five juveniles were observed on the Annex. These 

burrowing owls were utilizing a natural burrow at one of the water catchment basins along Banta 

Road. Adjacent land use consisted of recently tilled and flooded agricultural fields, resulting in 

minimal to short vegetation during the time of these observations. Additional surveys were 

conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2015; however, adjacent vegetation to the previously documented 

burrow was overgrown and burrowing owls were not observed during these surveys (DLA 2011b, 

DLA 2013b, DLA 2013c; DLA 2015). The Depot has subsequently reported incidental observations 

of burrowing owls at the Annex.

Photograph 3. Burrowing Owls in San Joaquin County

Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are a diverse group, relying on a wide range of habitats during their breeding and 

non-breeding seasons and during migration. Effective bird conservation necessitates coordinated 

efforts that improve habitats and contribute to the overall health of ecosystems. Given the vast 

geographic ranges of migratory birds, the variety of species, and the incomplete knowledge of their 

life cycle requirements, conservation partnerships spanning geopolitical and taxonomic boundaries 

are critical to the success of migratory bird conservation efforts (DOD PIF 2009).

The MBTA protects migratory birds and implements the United States’ commitment to international 

conventions for the protection of migratory birds. The MBTA is the domestic law that governs the 

taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and 

nests. The Depot is subject to the provisions of the MBTA, statutory and regulatory requirements 

associated with the Migratory Bird Permits, Take of Migratory Birds by the Armed Forces 

(DOD/MBTA rule; 72 Federal Register 8931), and the Memorandum of Understanding between DOD 

and USFWS to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds (71 Federal Register 51580). If the 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 35

DOD determines that a proposed or ongoing military readiness activity could result in a significant 

adverse effect on a population of a migratory bird species, then coordination must occur with 

USFWS to develop appropriate and reasonable conservation measures to minimize or mitigate such 

potential adverse effects (see 72 Federal Register 8931). 

Additionally, Executive Order (EO) 13186, Conservation of Migratory Birds (January 10, 2001), 

requires the support of various conservation planning efforts already in progress; the incorporation of 

bird conservation considerations into agency planning, including NEPA analyses; and on the annual 

reporting of the level of take of migratory birds. Birds of Conservation Concern are a subset of 

protected birds under the MBTA and include all species, subspecies, and populations of migratory 

nongame birds that are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA without additional 

conservation actions (USFWS 2008). Birds of Conservation Concern that have the potential to occur 

on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern with the Potential to 

Occur on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Observed on Site?

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus year-round No

Black rail Laterallus jamaicensis breeding No

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia year-round Yes

California spotted owl* Strix occidentalis year-round No

Costa's hummingbird Calypte costae breeding No

Fox sparrow Passerella iliaca wintering No

Lawrence's goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei breeding No

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis breeding No

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes wintering No

Lewis's woodpecker* Melanerpes lewis wintering No

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus year-round Yes

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus wintering No

Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa wintering No

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus wintering No

Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii year-round No

Oak titmouse* Baeolophus inornatus year-round No

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus year-round No

Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus wintering No
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

36 | May 2018

Table 3. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern with the Potential to 

Occur on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Observed on Site?

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus wintering No

Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni wintering Yes

Tricolored blackbird* Agelaius tricolor year-round No

Yellow-billed magpie* Pica nuttalli year-round No

Source: IPaC 2015; * Partners In Flight Watch List

Partners in Flight

Partners in Flight (PIF) is a network of more than 150 partner organizations engaged in all aspects of 

landbird conservation. Most recently, PIF published an update to the North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004; Rosenburg et al. 2016). The 2016 update refines and updates 

the relative vulnerability assessments and resulting Watch List that identifies the species of highest 

conservation concern. The Watch List, which provides rankings and descriptions of factors for 

vulnerability for each species, fosters proactive management towards the most vulnerable bird 

species. The Depot falls within two networks organized to facilitate cooperation of partner 

organizations: the Central Valley Joint Venture and the DOD Partners in Flight program.

The Central Valley Joint Venture includes waterfowl, shorebirds, and landbirds while covering a 

broad range of habitats. The Joint Venture focuses on a goal of restoring ecosystems that are 

capable of supporting self-sustaining and resilient landbird populations. As such, this partnership has 

developed a list of focal species. Five species that are on that list are also listed on the USFWS 

Birds of Conservation Concern, denoted by an asterisk in Table 3 above.

The DOD Partners in Flight (PIF) program consists of a cooperative network of natural resources 

personnel and others that spans across U.S. military installations, and links with partners throughout 

the Americas. DOD PIF supports and enhances the military mission by providing a focused and 

coordinated approach for the conservation of resident and migratory birds and their habitats on DOD 

lands dealing with all bird species, including migratory, resident, game, and non-game birds. 

Specifically, DOD PIF develops cooperative agreements for implementing bird conservation 

programs and projects on military lands, facilitates communication and information sharing across 

geographic and political boundaries, participates and provides leadership in PIF committees and 

working groups, and provides military natural resources professionals with the most up-to-date 

information on bird conservation (DOD PIF 2009).

DOD PIF sustains and enhances readiness through proactive, habitat-based conservation and 

management strategies that maintain healthy landscapes and training lands. DOD PIF works beyond 

installation boundaries to facilitate cooperative partnerships, determine the current status of 

migratory birds, and prevent the listing of additional birds as threatened or endangered. DOD PIF 

provides a scientific basis for maximizing the effectiveness of resource management, enhancing the 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 37

biological integrity of DOD lands, and ensuring continued use of these lands to fulfill military training 

requirements. Participating in partnerships, such as PIF, also helps DOD to meet its trust 

responsibility to conserve our nation’s biodiversity more effectively (DOD PIF 2009).

For further information on the DOD Partners in Flight program, go to http://www.DODpif.org.

The DOD Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation provides a framework for DOD 

installation to use to effectively manage amphibians and reptiles on DOD lands by focusing on 

habitat and species management; inventory, research, monitoring; and education, outreach, and 

training (Lovich et al. 2015). 

For further information on the DOD Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation program, go to 

http://www.dodnaturalresources.net/DoD-PARC.html.

Flora

According to the California Natural Diversity Database, there are no federally listed threatened or 

endangered plant species and six special status plant species that have been documented within 

five miles of the Depot (CNDDB 2015). The CNPS has a ranking system for special status plants. 

Plants with a rank of 1A are presumed extinct because they have not been seen or collected in the 

wild in California in many years. This rank includes plants that are both presumed extinct as well as 

those plants which are presumed extirpated in California. There are no plant occurrences ranked as 

1A within 5 miles of the Depot. Plants with a rank of 1B are rare throughout their range with the 

majority of them endemic to California. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined 

significantly over the last century. All of the plants constituting rank 1B meet the definitions of 

Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 of the CDFW 

Code, and are eligible for state listing (DLA 2013b). 

There are five plant species ranked as 1B that have been documented within 5 miles of the Depot: 

big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa); caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum); 

Delta button celery (Eryngium racemosum); round-leaved filaree (Californica macrophylla); and 

slough thistle (Cirsium crassicaule). Except for being common beyond the boundaries of California, 

plants with a rank of 2 would have been ranked 1B. From the federal perspective, plants common in 

other states or countries were not eligible for consideration under the provisions of the ESA until 

1979. However, after the passage of the Native Plant Protection Act in 1979, plants were considered 

for protection without regard to their distribution outside the state. There is one species, Wright’s 

trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii), occurrence ranked as 2 within 5 miles of the 

Depot. Added to the ranks of CNPS 1A, 1B, and 2 there is a threat rank. The CNPS Threat Rank is 

an extension added onto the above described rare plant ranks and designates the level of 

endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most endangered (seriously threatened in 

California) and 3 being the least endangered (not very threatened in California). Table 4 depicts both 

the rare plant ranks and the threat rank for special status plants occurrences within 5 miles of the 

Depot (CNDDB 2015).

Wetlands

The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated with ground or surface 

water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do 

support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

38 | May 2018

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR § 328). Wetlands are special 

aquatic sites that have a high resource value.

There is a percolation/evaporation pond on site that supports wetland vegetation (see Photograph 4) 

and exhibits the structure and function of a wetland. Surface water runoff from the entire Depot is 

collected into a stormwater drainage system and transported to this unlined holding pond in the 

northern corner of the site. Water in the pond evaporates or percolates downward into the soil. If 

inflows exceed the capacity of the pond, excess water is pumped to a local drainage ditch that 

ultimately drains into the San Joaquin River, 4.5 miles northeast of the site (DLA 2013b).

Table 4. Special Status Plant Species that Occur Near Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin

Species

Status/ 

CNPS 

Rank

Habitat Observed 

on Site? Comments

Big tarplant

(Blepharizonia plumosa)

1B.1 Valley grasslands, 

foothill woodlands, and 

chaparral

No Occurrence near Tracy 

Airport 2.5 miles from the 

Depot. No suitable habitat 

on Depot.

Caper-fruited tropidocarpum

(Tropidocarpum capparideum)

1B.1 Valley grasslands No No suitable undisturbed 

grassland habitat on the 

Depot.

Delta button celery

(Eryngium racemosum)

SE,1B.1 Vernally mesic clay 

depressions, riparian 

scrub

No No suitable habitat on the 

Depot.

Round-leaved filaree

(Californica macrophylla)

1B.1 Valley grasslands and 

woodland foothills

No Occurrence near City of 

Tracy. No native 

grasslands or woodlands 

on the Depot.

Slough thistle

(Cirsium crassicaule)

1B.1 Marshes, swamps and 

riparian-scrub areas, and 

chenopod scrub

No Occurrence near Lathrop. 

No suitable habitat on the 

Depot.

Wright’s trichocoronis

(Trichocoronis wrightii var. 

wrightii)

2.1 Riparian areas, 

meadows, marshes, and 

vernal pools

No No suitable habitat on the 

Depot.

Source: CNDDB 2015
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 39

Photograph 4. Seasonally Inundated Retention Pond at Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin

The Sacramento District of USACE provided a determination in 1996 for the Depot that there are no 

wetlands regulated under Section 404 of the CWA on the Depot. The stormwater basin was 

examined and because “this basin was excavated in uplands and it has artificial hydrology in that 

stormwater is pumped into the basin, this area is not a jurisdictional water of the United States” (DLA 

1999). If the basin is abandoned in the future, any portion of the basin that retains wetland 

characteristics then could be considered a jurisdictional wetland or water of the United States.

In the regional areas outside the Depot, vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands in the San 

Joaquin Valley provide important foraging and breeding habitat and cover for wetland wildlife and 

invertebrates. These ephemeral wetlands also support highly specialized plant taxa adapted to 

growing conditions associated with seasonal and year-to-year variation in water availability. In the 

San Joaquin Valley, vernal pools support listed species. These are shallow ephemeral water bodies 

found in depressions among grasslands that can include vernal pools, vernal swale wetlands, and 

depressional seasonal wetlands. No vernal pool grasslands occur on the Depot, and wetted surfaces 

or pools likely to support vernal pool species were not observed during surveys of the site (DLA 

2013b).

Invasive, Nonnative, Nuisance and Pest Species

Integrated pest management is a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological, 

cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental 

risks. Federal agencies are mandated to use integrated pest management by Public Law (Section 

136r-l of title 7, U.S.C.). The IPMP is a guide to reduce reliance on pesticides and to enhance 

environmental protection; it reflects current DOD and DA policies, procedures, and standards and 

incorporates the requirements of USEPA and the State of California. The IPMP for Defense 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

40 | May 2018

Distribution Depot San Joaquin (DLA 2016) describes program elements including health and 

environmental safety; pest identification; pest management; and pesticide storage, transportation, 

use, and disposal. The lessee of the Annex is responsible for pest management controls on the 

leased agricultural land, which include appropriate state certification and reporting of pesticide use.

Invasive Fauna

There is a well-established population of feral cats that are located at the large water retention basin 

in the northwest corner of the Depot. These cats likely have a negative impact on migratory bird 

species to include songbirds and waterbirds. The location in which the cats reside is the most 

biologically diverse sites on the Depot. It provides nesting habitat and a seasonal water source for 

many species – all of which have the potential to be impacted by predation of the feral cats.

Invasive Flora

Invasive species can threaten the health of an ecosystem through competition and predation of 

native species. There are a number of noxious weeds that are of particular concern to the Depot. In 

2006, the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) updated the 1999 Exotic Pest Plants of 

Greatest Ecological Concern in California inventory list. The updated Cal-IPC inventory ranks 

invasive species using a High, Moderate, Limited, or Evaluated but not listed scale based on 

ecological impact of the species (Cal-IPC 2006). The Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 requires 

each federal agency to develop a management program to control noxious weeds on Federal lands 

under the agency’s jurisdiction. EO 13112, Invasive Species, requires all Federal agencies to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the 

economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The Presidential 

Memorandum, Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bee and other 

Pollinators (June 2014), directs the DOD to support habitat restoration for pollinators with the use of 

pollinator-friendly native landscaping and minimize the use of pesticides harmful to pollinators 

through integrated management practices. Although most of the noxious weeds identified on the 

Depot are annual species, corrective action may be necessary to manage the spread of certain 

species.

Based on the 2012 biological survey (DLA 2013b), 31 plants listed in the Cal-IPC inventory (Cal-IPC 

2006) were identified on the Depot (Table 5). Based on the ranking system described above, three 

weeds ranked in the high risk category: giant reed, yellow starthistle and perennial pepperweed 

(Lepidium latifolium). Additionally, 14 species ranked as moderate risks and 14 weeds ranked as 

limited risk were observed on the site. Most of these noxious weeds are dispersed and occur in 

small numbers primarily in isolated nonnative annual grassland patches and bare areas (DLA 

2013b). One of the high-ranked species, giant reed, only occurs in the eastern corner of the 

installation in a small, isolated tract bounded by railroad tracks and the exterior side of the Depot 

fence. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 41

Table 5. Invasive and Nonnative Plants Observed on Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin

Common Name Scientific Name Cal-IPC Rank

Giant reed Arundo donax High

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis High

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium High

Tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima Moderate

Australian saltbush Atriplex semibaccata Moderate

Slender wild oat Avena barbata Moderate

Wild oat Avena fatua Moderate

Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus Moderate

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Moderate

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Moderate

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon Moderate

Tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus globulus Moderate

Shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana Moderate

Seaside barley Hordeum marinum Moderate

Italian ryegrass Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum Moderate

London rocket Sisymbrium irio Moderate

Washington palm Washingtonia robusta Moderate

Field mustard Brassica rapa Limited

Soft brome Bromus hordeaceus Limited

Redstem filaree Erodium cicutarium Limited

California burclover Medicago polymorpha Limited

Olive Olea europaea Limited

Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides Limited

Narrow leaf plantain Plantago lanceolata Limited

Rabbitfoot polypogon Polypogon monspeliensis Limited

Cherry plum Prunus cerasifera Limited
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

42 | May 2018

Table 5. Invasive and Nonnative Plants Observed on Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin

Common Name Scientific Name Cal-IPC Rank

Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia Limited

Curly dock Rumex crispus Limited

Russian thistle Salsola tragus Limited

Peruvian peppertree Schinus molle Limited

Blessed milkthistle Silybum marianum Limited

Source: DLA 2013b, USDA 1999, Cal-IPC 2006

Another one of the high-ranked species, yellow starthistle, was documented as abundant on the 

Depot during both the 1999 and 2012 biological surveys. The most obvious locations that yellow 

starthistle is abundant are in the stormwater retention basin in the northern area of the Depot and 

other small areas that are not mowed or sprayed with herbicide on a regular basis; however, signs of 

this species exist in every portion of the Depot and in isolated areas of the Annex. Unfortunately, the 

yellow starthistle poses a serious threat to the biological diversity of California’s grasslands (DLA 

1999). Due to the yellow starthistle’s high threat ranking and its documented abundance on the 

Depot, this species is discussed in detail below.

Yellow Starthistle 

Yellow starthistle (see Photograph 5) is a noxious nonnative annual/biennial member of the aster 

(Asteraceae) family of flowering plants that originates from the eastern Mediterranean and will often 

form monocultures. It has long yellow spines extending from the yellow composite flower head. It 

grows to a height of 2 to 3 feet and is well-branched, but it can also persist and flower in a mowed 

area at approximately 1 inch in height. In addition to being ranked by Cal-IPC has a high threat, this 

plant has a California Department of Food and Agriculture rating of A, meaning that it is an organism 

of known economic importance subject to state-enforced action involving eradication, quarantine, 

containment, rejection, or other holding action. It has a combination of growth patterns and survival 

mechanisms that have allowed it to infest millions of acres in California and it is spreading at an 

estimated rate of 50 to 100 acres a year. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 43

Photograph 5. Yellow Starthistle on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Yellow starthistle produces a tremendous crop of seeds that germinate during autumn and winter 

rains. The dense carpet of basal rosettes and the tall standing dry matter produced during the 

previous growing season work together to exclude many native spring flowering plants. During the 

spring, yellow starthistle sends down deep roots that will allow it to survive and flower throughout dry 

summer months, thus also displacing native summer growing plants. In late spring (May–June), 

plants send up persistent, tall, multi-branched flower stalks. Numerous flowering heads that develop 

can produce thousands of seeds. Once reaching the soil, seeds can remain viable for 10 years or 

more if buried. Effective control programs aim to destroy yellow starthistle plants before they can 

release their seed crop and add to the soil seed bank. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

44 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 45

5 Management Concerns, Objectives, and 

Actions

Management objectives established in this INRMP were developed through a thorough evaluation of 

the natural resources present at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin. A number of items have 

been identified in subject areas that affect the natural resources present on and immediately 

adjacent to Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin. The purpose of this section is to identify actions 

and objectives for Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin and to obtain workable and useful 

solutions for each item identified.

Specific concerns, objectives, and actions were developed to meet the overriding goals for natural 

resources managed on the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (see Table 6). A summary of the 

management actions and the estimated timeframe for completion is presented in Appendix C. 

Table 6. Summary of INRMP Goals

Ecosystem Management (ECO) Goals

• Manage Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin based on a regional ecosystem approach that conserves 

biodiversity.

• Identify natural resources and operational actions that compromise the function and composition of 

ecosystems and develop remedies through adaptive management.

• Implement management strategies with consideration of ecological units and timeframes.

• Support sustainable, multiple-use human activities.

• Apply ecosystem-based management through implementation of the INRMP and other installation plans and 

programs.

Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern (TES) Goals

• Manage Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin on a regional ecosystem-based approach that manages 

sensitive species and their associated ecosystems while protecting the operational functionality of the military 

missions.

• Ensure that Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin remains in compliance with the ESA and appropriate 

state regulations.

• Promote natural resources and ecosystem management in the local region that benefits the functionality of the 

ecosystems.

• Protect sensitive wildlife habitats on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin.

Wetlands and Waters of the United States (WT) Goals

• Remain in compliance with USACE and State of California wetlands regulations.

• Minimize the operational impact of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin missions on wetland vegetation in 

retention pond.

Watershed Management (WM) Goals

• Reduce/control nutrient and sediment inputs into the watershed that degrade water quality.

• Minimize nonpoint source pollution of surface water in the watershed through the implementation of BMPs.

• Maintain vegetation buffers on waterways/riparian corridors.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

46 | May 2018

Table 6. Summary of INRMP Goals

Fish and Wildlife Management (FW) Goals

• Manage based on an ecosystem management approach, rather than a single-species paradigm.

• Employ a systematic approach to managing wildlife resources, using a process that includes inventory, 

monitoring, modeling, management, assessment, and evaluation.

• Minimize wildlife-related health risks, safety risks, and environmental damage.

• Maintain diversity of wildlife in areas on the installation where there will be no conflict with the mission.

• Maintain and involve partnerships with agencies and groups involved in wildlife management.

Habitat Management (HM) Goals

• Enhance habitat by providing suitable food and cover for native species while protecting the operational 

functionality of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin’s missions.

• Protect native habitat diversity.

• Enhance habitat for native species by removing invasive vegetation.

Exotic and Invasive Species Management (INV) Goals

• Ensure compliance with environmental legislation, regulations, and guidelines.

• Control pests and invasive species.

Grounds Maintenance (GM) Goals

• Lessen or avoid adverse effects from project activities on the overall ecosystem and its sensitive resources.

• Make maximum use of regional, native plant species and avoid introduction of invasive, exotic species in 

revegetation and landscaping activities.

• Reduce maintenance inputs in terms of energy, water, manpower, and equipment.

Agricultural Outleasing (AG) Goals

• Balance production on agricultural lands with long-term health and functionality of the soils.

• Ensure outlease terms provide ecological benefits where possible and support installation natural resources 

program management.

Outdoor Recreation (OR) Goals

• Provide outdoor recreation experiences while sustaining ecosystem integrity.

• Ensure that outdoor recreation activities are not in conflict with mission priorities.

Environmental Awareness, Education, and Outreach (EDU) Goals

• Provide education opportunities to military personnel.

• Promote environmental stewardship through training and awareness. 

Surrounding Lands (SR) Goals

• Coordinate with surrounding landowners on ecosystem-based management of resources and encourage 

cooperative efforts on adjacent lands that are complementary to the INRMP.

• Minimize threats to Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin assets and natural resources from off-site land 

use.

5.1 Ecosystem Management (ECO)

It is the goal of ecosystem management at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin to conserve 

biodiversity by managing the ecosystem rather than focusing on a single biotic or abiotic component 

of the ecosystem. Ecosystem-focused management encompasses both the function and the 

structure of the ecosystem and the processes that link them. Additionally, DODI 4715.03 states that 

DOD Components shall assess installation lands for forestry and agricultural outlease suitability. Any 

such uses shall support the military mission and be addressed in the INRMP, and shall be consistent 

with long-term ecosystem-based management goals that place ecological sustainability objectives 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 47

above revenue optimization goals (DOD 2011). The ecosystem management issues and associated 

objectives and actions are presented as follows.

ECO-1. Develop an Ecosystem Vision for the Installation

Concern: There is an ongoing need for coordination between Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin and other agencies; and between interested and affected public entities during plan 

development and implementation to manage the ecosystem effectively.

Objective: Develop an ecosystem vision for Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin that can be 

relayed during communication with other agencies and public entities to ensure that the installation’s 

ecosystem management approach is understood.

Actions:

1. Complete this version of the INRMP and use it as a beginning point to develop an ecosystem 

management approach to natural resources management.

2. As needed, develop a process and schedule for coordinating with agencies to allow for 

agency comment on management plans. 

ECO-2: Ecosystem Management of Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin and Mission Requirements

Concern: Conceptually, ecosystem management is an appropriate strategy for managing 

installation natural resources. Pragmatically, the approach is not currently defined well enough to 

develop an integrated management plan that will guide natural resources management. Additionally, 

the small contribution of the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin to regional ecosystems are not 

well understood across time and across large geographic areas.

Objective: Develop an effective natural resources management approach that integrates all 

ecological components into a comprehensive management program.

Actions:

1. Foster landscape-scale thinking among installation staff and provide them with appropriate 

training if needed.

2. Implement actions, once plans are developed or revised, identified in the INRMP.

5.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern 

(TES)

An installation’s overall ecosystem management strategy must provide for protection and recovery of 

threatened and endangered species. Under the ESA, an “endangered species” is defined as any 

species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A 

“threatened species” is defined as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Species of concern include 

federally listed candidate species; state-listed threatened or endangered, candidate, or species of 

concern; migratory birds; and birds listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern list. USFWS has 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

48 | May 2018

also presented a list of species that are regarded as candidates for possible listing under the ESA. 

Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, the USFWS believes it is 

important to advise government agencies, industry, and the public that these species are at risk and 

could warrant protection under the Act. 

General management actions for listed species include the following: 

• Prepare and implement specific management actions for listed species that include protocols 

for monitoring surveys and for site marking of sensitive areas. 

• Implement Environmental Review requirements in accordance with AR 200-1.

• Conduct Environmental Awareness briefings as necessary.

• Perform minimization and conservation measures aimed at reducing the potential for 

accidental take.

• Investigate and implement research projects to better understand the ecological 

requirements of listed and species of concern.

• Investigate and implement habitat improvement and nonnative species control to conserve 

listed species.

If threatened, endangered, or species of concern are discovered on the installation during a biotic 

inventory, species information and management actions should be incorporated into the INRMP. 

Figure 5 presents an endangered species coordination decision chart that should be used as part of 

the planning process for projects that could impact known or potential future populations of 

threatened or endangered species on the installation. 

The goal of this section is to manage Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin on a regional 

ecosystem-based approach that manages threatened, endangered, and species of concern while 

protecting the operational functionality of the mission. While single-species management is not 

promoted as a general philosophical management approach on the installation, specific controls are 

used to protect threatened, endangered, and species of concern beyond management of the 

ecosystem. The threatened and endangered species and critical habitats topics of concern and 

associated objectives and actions are presented as follows.

TES-1: Federal- and State-Listed Species Management

Concern: There are no federal-listed species that are known to reside on Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin. Should federal-listed species occur on the installation, the installation will meet 

requirements under the ESA by providing adequate management or protection and by modifying this 

INRMP accordingly. There are three state-listed species that have been documented on the 

installation. 

Objective: Confirm the presence or absence of threatened and endangered species and species of 

concern.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 49

Figure 5. Federally Listed Species Coordination

T/E = threatened or endangered; CH = designated critical habitat; BA = Biological Assessment

Federal Agency Action

Are T/E Species or CH Present?

Are T/E Species or CH Likely to be Affected?

(may affect determination)

Is the Action a Major Federal Construction Activity?

End

Action Agency Prepares Biological 

Assessment

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes No

End

No

Optional

Service(s)

Concurs

Is the action likely to adversely affect TE 

species or CH? No Service(s)

Concurs

End

Yes

Is the action likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

TE species or destroy or adversely modify CH?

Yes No

PROCEED with 

project adhering to 

terms and conditions 

of biological opinion.

"Jeopardy" biological 

opinion with alternatives

"No Jeopardy"

biological opinion

Will Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin adopt alternatives?

PROCEED with project adhering to 

terms and conditions of biological 

opinion.

Yes

Cancel or modify project, 

notify regional USFWS.

No
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

50 | May 2018

Actions:

1. Continue to conduct floristic and fauna surveys at established intervals (every 5 years) to 

determine any changes to the state of federally listed plants/animals located on the 

installation. If a candidate, threatened, or endangered species is discovered, management 

actions will be developed and incorporated into this INRMP to fulfill the requirements of the 

ESA and state legislation (i.e., to provide adequate management or protection).

2. Maintain a list of special status plant and animal species with the potential to occur at 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (see list in Table 2).

3. If listed species are found, or if species already known on the installation become listed, 

modify this INRMP for adequate management or protection of the species.

4. Consider conducting remote sensing (e.g., trail cameras) surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox. 

Coordinate with USFWS to determine whether a reimbursable agreement for the surveys 

could be developed (see Section 5.5.3, Action 3).

TES-2: Special Status Species Habitat Protection

Objective: Maintain habitats for special status species, such as riparian areas and grasslands, in 

the limited areas available.

Actions:

1. Continue monitoring special status species as described in this INRMP and adapt monitoring 

and management actions as needed. Use monitoring information and other information 

gleaned to guide adaptive management.

2. Initiate habitat improvement projects to conserve biodiversity and protect plant and animal 

habitats, as funding is available and when such projects will not adversely affect the military 

mission (e.g., limited habitat disturbance where such disturbance will promote native plant 

growth, preventing habitat disturbance when this will promote native plant growth, and 

revegetation with native plants). 

3. Periodically review the natural resources management program to ensure that management 

actions do not adversely impact species of concern habitat.

TES-3: Special Status Species Awareness

Concern: Mission activities might impact these species of concern, as installation staff, tenants, and 

leasees might not be aware of how to identify and avoid these species. 

Objective: Minimize the potential for adverse effect on special status species from installation 

activities.

Actions:

1. Implement species-specific and overall conservation and monitoring measures described in 

this INRMP and those developed in future biological opinions. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 51

2. Develop special status species identification sheets for distribution to installation personnel. 

Provide information on how to avoid impacting these species.

3. Continue use of the established Environmental Review process to identify actions that result 

in adverse effects on special status species or habitats. Coordinate measures with the 

proponent to reduce adverse effects. 

4. Provide an environmental coordination map, which includes the following information:

a. Regulated areas in which activity restrictions are in place.

b. Special status species locations where pre-planning efforts might be necessary.

TES-4: Burrowing Owl Management

Concern: Mission activities might impact the burrowing owl, as installation staff might not be aware 

of how to identify and avoid this species and its habitat. 

Objective: Minimize the potential for adverse effect on burrowing owls from installation activities and 

maintain habitats, such as roadside berms and water conveyance structures adjacent to agricultural 

fields within the Annex. Management actions have been adopted from the Burrowing Owl 

Management Plan previously developed for the Sharpe Site (DLA 1997) and the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) in addition to 

specific input from USFWS and CDFW on this plan. 

Actions:

1. Implement annual breeding season census surveys for burrowing owls throughout the 

installation.

2. Implement pre-construction mitigation measures within suitable burrowing owl habitat 

including: pre-activity surveys; passive relocation of burrowing owls from construction zones; 

mitigating impacts to occupied burrows; installing and maintaining artificial burrows;

mitigating impacts to unoccupied burrows; and mitigating impacts to foraging habitat.

3. Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period (1 February through 31 August) 

and avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by resident 

burrowing owls. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining, disking, cultivation, and 

urban, industrial, or agricultural development. Place visible markers near burrows to ensure 

that farm equipment and other machinery do not collapse burrows.

4. Outside of the nesting period (1 February through 31 August), mow areas that support 

borrowing owls to prevent invasive plants from reaching a height of approximately 5 inches.

5. Develop and implement worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s

recognition and commitment to burrowing owl protection. Ensure agricultural outlease terms 

include these BMPs for protection of the species and maintenance of habitat as compatible 

with agricultural uses.

6. Avoid fumigation of any animal burrows. Do not use treated bait or other means of poisoning 

nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites 

observed with nesting owls, foraging habitat). Restrict the use of treated grain to poison 

mammals in areas outside of burrowing owl habitat, only apply during the month of January,
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

52 | May 2018

and use only when integrated pest management options are not effective (e.g., mechanical). 

Broadcast baiting is not permitted; if use of treated grain is necessary, use bait stations and 

only place stations outside of occupied burrowing owl habitat.

7. Conduct a biological feasibility study to explore the potential for setting aside a portion of the 

agricultural annex for burrowing owl habitat. This study should include an assessment of 

current and past inhabited areas on the annex, short and long-term recommendations for 

managing or restoring those areas to suitable habitat conditions, and an analysis of the 

appropriate size and configuration of land that would be biologically meaningful for burrowing 

owl conservation.

8. Conduct a logistical and financial feasibility study to determine the potential for setting aside 

a portion of the agricultural annex for burrowing owl habitat conservation (e.g., agricultural 

lease renewal schedules, potential mission impacts, integration with the Installation Master 

Plan).

9. Ensure collaboration with CDFW and USFWS regarding burrowing owl habitat management 

planning during the annual INRMP review.

10. In order to facilitate habitat for burrowing owls, proactively manage for the presence of 

ground squirrels when not in conflict with the military mission. 

5.3 Wetlands and Waters of the United States (WT)

Wetland management strategies vary depending primarily on the wetland classification, which is 

determined by the value of a particular wetland area. A wetland’s value is decided by the quality of 

the functions it provides, including its biomass production, habitat, erosion control, storm water 

storage, water quality protection, aquifer recharge potential, and low flow augmentation. Wetland 

complexes should be managed to benefit various bird and mammal species. 

There are no known wetlands regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the Depot, as 

determined by the USACE Sacramento District-conducted jurisdictional determination in 1996. There 

are three percolation/evaporation ponds on site that support wetland vegetation. Should any of those 

ponds be abandoned in the future, they may then be considered jurisdictional if they retain wetland 

characteristics (DLA 1999). Objectives and management actions for wetlands, waters of the United 

States, and floodplain protection are as follows.

WT-1: Wetland Vegetation Management

Concern: A determination was completed in 1996, and no jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the 

United State are located on the Depot; however, three onsite percolation/evaporation ponds support 

wetland vegetation.

Objective: Maintain and prevent damage of native wetland vegetation on Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin to provide habitat for bird and mammal wetland associated species. Maintain 

native wetland vegetation in coordination with efforts to remove excess and non-native vegetation for 

percolation/evaporation pond effectiveness. 

Actions:

1. Conduct Environmental Review for activities that could affect percolation/evaporation ponds.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 53

2. Plan development activities to avoid native wetland vegetation impacts to the maximum 

extent possible when conducting non-native and excess vegetation removal for pond 

effectiveness.

3. Maintain water quality to protect surface waters and ponds from excessive sediment-laden 

runoff.

4. Develop a buffer zone around the pond to maintain native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous 

plants while managing for nonnative, invasive, pest species.

5.4 Watershed Management (WM)

Watershed management is important to natural resources management because it has the potential 

to directly affect both surface water and groundwater quality and is critical to maintain valuable 

aquatic habitats. The watershed protection topics of concern and associated goals and objectives 

are as follows.

WM-1: Water Quality Monitoring Program for Surface Waters

Concern: There is the potential for point source and nonpoint source contamination from pollutants, 

sedimentation, and nutrients, especially waters downstream from the cantonment area and parking 

sites. Pollutants can degrade water quality in surface waters and violate provisions of the CWA.

Objective: Maintain high quality surface waters to support viable populations of native aquatic and 

terrestrial life. Remain in compliance with ESA, CWA, and other regulatory drivers.

Actions:

1. Implement provisions of the stormwater BMP’s including sampling prior to discharging water 

offsite to the irrigation district. 

2. To the maximum extent feasible, maintain buffers between percolation/evaporation ponds, 

riparian areas, or drainages and construction or other ground-disturbance areas.

3. Continue groundwater monitoring and remediation program and continue to prohibit the use 

of shallow groundwater from on-site wells within the contaminated zone.

5.5 Fish and Wildlife Management (FW) 

For the purposes of this INRMP, wildlife management is defined as manipulation of the environment 

and wildlife populations to produce desired objectives. The primary goal of wildlife management at 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin is to maintain wildlife populations at levels compatible with 

land use objectives while promoting the existence, importance, and benefits of nongame species. 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin management activities include minimal direct wildlife 

management. The primary focus of management involves habitat management. The fish and wildlife 

management topics of concern and associated objectives and actions are as follows.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

54 | May 2018

FW-1: General Wildlife Management

Concern: Biotic surveys are conducted every 5 years or prior to the INRMP revision in accordance 

with AR 200-1. These data are cross-referenced with current threatened, endangered, species of 

concern, and noxious weed lists to ensure that management actions are appropriate. 

Objective: Establish a general wildlife population trend monitoring program as a component of 

long-term ecological trend monitoring.

Actions:

1. Continue to do biotic surveys every 5 years, prior to the INRMP revision, to monitor 

significant changes in wildlife species or populations present on Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin. 

2. Continue documenting nongame species that are incidentally observed during species of 

concern surveys.

3. Maintain an updated inventory of plants and animals present on Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin.

4. Ensure that the natural resources staff members responsible for flora and fauna 

management and conservation obtain focused training regarding management of these 

resources as related to conservation on a military installation. 

FW-2: Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Concern: The MBTA prohibits “take” of migratory birds except by permit; permit requirements are 

exempt for military training but not for construction, operations, or maintenance of a military 

installation. Permits will only be sought if necessary for activities which may result in an incidental 

take.

Objective: Comply with MBTA and minimize incidental loss of migratory and non-migratory birds.

Actions:

1. Conduct surveys of activity sites as needed to determine if migratory bird nests are present 

and active. If necessary, Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin will apply for an 

appropriate permit for intentional take of migratory birds.

2. Work with project proponents and Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin directorates to 

develop effective management for minimizing the unintentional take of migratory birds.

3. Avoid and minimize impacts on migratory birds in and around the installation as individual 

projects are developed: 

a. Where disturbance is necessary, clear natural or semi-natural habitats and perform 

maintenance activities (e.g., mowing) between September 1 and January 31, which is 

outside the nesting season for most native bird species, including the burrowing owl 

(CDFG 2012). Without undertaking specific analysis of breeding species and their 

respective nesting seasons on the project site, implementation of this seasonal restriction 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 55

will avoid take of most breeding birds, their nests, and their young (i.e., eggs, hatchlings, 

fledglings). 

b. Minimize land and vegetation disturbance during project design and construction. To 

reduce habitat fragmentation, co-locate roads, fences, laydown areas, staging areas, and 

other infrastructure in or immediately adjacent to already disturbed areas (e.g., existing 

roads). Where this is not possible, minimize roads, fences, and other infrastructure.

c. Develop a habitat restoration plan for any proposed disturbance site that avoids or 

minimizes negative impacts on vulnerable wildlife. Use only plant species that are native 

to the local area for revegetation of the project area.

4. Follow management recommendations in the IPMP to discourage birds from entering or 

nesting on buildings.

FW-3: External Assistance

Concern: The rapid development of natural resources management combined with DOD personnel 

cutbacks have resulted in the need for outside assistance with natural resources programs.

Objectives: Provide external specialized skills, personnel, and resources to support Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin natural resources program.

Actions:

1. Cooperate with state and federal agencies to assist with wildlife management.

2. Explore opportunities to conduct research through universities and other government 

agencies to assist with wildlife management.

3. Use contractors or other federal or state agencies to assist with fish and wildlife 

management.

4. Explore collaborative opportunities with local volunteer organizations such as the California 

Native Plant Society, Boy Scout troops, Girl Scout troops, and other community 

organizations to complete specific tasks to benefit natural resources.

5. The USFWS has the potential to provide management assistance through a reimbursable 

agreement.

5.6 Habitat Management (HM)

Habitat management encompasses a range of management issues that affect fish and wildlife, 

threatened and endangered species, and ecosystem drivers. Objectives and management actions 

for habitat management are presented as follows.

HM-1: Soil Resources Management

Concern: Soil erosion and compaction results in lack of protective vegetation cover, degrades 

surface water quality, adversely affects sensitive plant habitats, has the potential to undermine 

infrastructure and creates dangerous conditions for vehicle travel. Soil erosion from human 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

56 | May 2018

disturbance is associated with incorrectly managed stormwater, construction development and 

maintenance and use of existing dirt roads and highly used sites.

Objective: Minimize compaction and erosion from current and future activities. Identify and restore 

eroded sites.

Actions:

1. Monitor construction projects and coordinate with Roads and Grounds if heavy equipment 

work is needed. 

2. Survey areas on post where soil erosion and compaction might occur from construction to 

ensure that BMPs within the erosion and sedimentation plan for that construction are 

implemented and effective.

3. Implement recommendations from erosion survey. Reseed with predominantly native seed. 

Use native pollinator species to the greatest extent possible per the Presidential 

Memorandum that directs DOD to use pollinator-friendly native landscaping and minimize 

use of pesticides harmful to pollinators.

4. Work with project proponents to identify potential erosion sites. Identify additional sites for 

land rehabilitation planning. 

5. Require all earth-moving activities (including contractor operations) to comply with the 

erosion and sedimentation plan for that construction project.

5.7 Exotic and Invasive Species Management (INV)

Exotic and invasive species management is a large part of pest management. The Federal Noxious 

Weed Act and EO 13112 require federal agencies to control noxious and invasive species on federal 

lands. EO 13112 requires federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect 

and control populations of invasive species, and restore native species and habitat conditions in 

ecosystems that have been invaded. Objectives and management actions for invasive species 

management are presented below.

INV-1: Invasive Species Control 

Concern: Comprehensive control of invasive and nonnative plant species should be a part of any 

overall site management and restoration program. 

Objective: Develop an Invasive Plant Prevention Plan for any newly developed areas. 

Actions:

1. Focus on the species and communities desired in place of the “weed” species, rather than on 

simply eliminating undesirable species. The species and communities desired will depend 

upon the management goals for a specific area. Use native pollinator species to the greatest 

extent possible per the Presidential Memorandum that directs DOD to use pollinator-friendly 

native landscaping and minimize use of pesticides harmful to pollinators.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 57

2. Establish BMPs such as seed testing with the Rules for Testing Seed, published by the 

Association of Official Seed Analysts during landscaping projects to prevent new species 

from becoming established. 

3. Include language in contracts with the construction companies to prevent the spread of 

invasive plant species on the installation.

5.8 Grounds Maintenance

In the process of identifying facilities and grounds maintenance actions, a list of goals was generated 

to create ecologically sustainable management objectives. Objectives and management actions for 

grounds maintenance are as follows.

GM-1: Integrated Pest Management

Concern: Pests can transmit diseases, compete with and have other negative effects on flora and 

fauna, and damage real property.

Objective: Control those plant and animal species that adversely affect natural resources 

management (e.g., reduce ecosystem functionality, displace native species) or affect the military 

mission or facilities on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin per the IPMP.

Actions:

1. Ensure compliance with environmental legislation, regulations, and guidelines. 

2. Implement DOD Technical Guide No. 37 Integrated Management of Stray Animals on 

Military Installations (DOD 2012). Direct installation staff to cease feeding feral cats and 

educate them on the potential impacts to migratory bird populations. Coordinate with local 

animal control offices to remove feral cats from the installation.

3. Implement pest management controls from the IPMP and other pest-related guidance and 

plans.

4. Update the existing IPMP to ensure that the plan reflects changes in populations and current 

management issues. 

GM-2: Eradication of Nonnative and Invasive Plant Species during 

Revegetation and Landscaping Activities

Concern: Nonnative and invasive species could be endangering populations of sensitive native 

species and creating lower quality habitat available for wildlife. 

Objective: Determine the extent of nonnative and invasive plant species on the installation. 

Eradicate invasive species using methods that will cause the least disturbance of native species that 

might be present. Reseed with plant species that are well-adapted to the growing conditions in the 

Central Valley region. Develop and adopt proactive management measures to control the 

proliferation of invasive species.

Actions:
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

58 | May 2018

1. During grounds maintenance activities, identify areas where invasive species occur and 

develop specific management actions to target the populations of these species.

2. Use integrated pest management methods that include non-chemical control to reduce the 

amount of herbicide applied on the installation in accordance with the DOD Pest 

Management Measures of Merit stipulated in DODI 4150.07 (DOD 2008) and the 

Presidential Memorandum, Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey 

Bees and Other Pollinators (June 2014).

3. For landscaping, use plants that are native to the local region as much as possible, or those 

that are not known to be invasive. Use native pollinator species to the greatest extent 

possible per the Presidential Memorandum that directs DOD to use pollinator-friendly native 

landscaping and minimize use of pesticides harmful to pollinators.

4. If necessary, coordinate with state and local regulators to obtain appropriate permits for 

nonnative and nuisance plant species eradication in wetland areas.

5.9 Agricultural Outleasing (AG)

Army policy requires an integrated approach to ecosystem management that manages natural 

systems and all their component parts — soil, water, wildlife, and vegetation. This policy supports 

multiple-use activities, including agriculture outleasing, when compatible with the mission and longterm ecosystem management goals. Authority to lease non-excess property for agricultural purposes 

is granted by 10 U.S.C. § 2667 and allows the Secretary of Army to lease lands not needed for the 

immediate military mission. The terms of the lease must be advantageous to the United States, 

promote the national defense, or be in the public interest, and money received from these leases is 

used to cover the administrative costs of outleasing and to support multiple-land use and other 

natural resources objectives. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the real estate agent for the lease and is responsible for 

administering all outleases in coordination with installation commanders. Duties of USACE 

personnel may include bid solicitation, bid openings, appraisals, awarding leases, establishing lease 

agreements, collecting and reporting proceeds, and lease inspections.

The Annex property, located to the north and northeast of the active installation, was acquired by 

DLA in 1993. Since that time, the Annex is primarily used for agricultural purposes. The lease was 

originally executed in 2007 and was subsequently modified in 2012 to extend the terms to the same 

lessee through December 2017 (DACA05-1-07-536). An updated lease is to be executed in 2018

(Parrish 2018).

Due to the potential environmental damage that can result from impact associated with agricultural 

activities, specific management goals have been developed to ensure that these activities remain 

productive and sustainable while providing benefit to the ecosystem. Leases must be managed to 

ensure that noxious weeds are controlled, sustainable levels of harvest are conducted, lands are 

maintained, and no significant alteration of the ecosystem occurs.

AG-1: Multiple-Use Management of Agricultural Outlease Area

Concern: Degradation or disruption can occur to soils, vegetation, or wildlife that occur in high-use 

areas of leased areas. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 59

Objective: Protect natural resources on to property used for agricultural operations.

Action:

1. Provide lessees with a copy of the INRMP and conduct periodic checks of the lease activity 

to ensure compliance with the INRMP.

2. Collect, review, and submit pesticide/herbicide application data from the lessee as required 

by the IPMP and Army regulations.

5.10 Outdoor Recreation and Public Access (OR)

The Sikes Act and DOD Directive 4715.03, Natural Resources Management Program, allow for 

public access onto DOD lands for the enjoyment and use of natural resources, if such use and 

access are compatible with the military mission and if the ecosystem can support such use. DLA is a 

trustee of public land and has a responsibility to protect and enhance environmental quality, 

conserve natural resources, and provide opportunities for outdoor recreation. However, it must be 

recognized that land under DLA control was acquired solely for national defense purposes. Other 

uses are, therefore, secondary to mission needs. 

Recreational land uses at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin are limited to a fitness center and 

a ball field in the northwestern corner of the installation. Sidewalks exist in some areas of the Depot; 

however, their primary function is to provide access to facilities rather than for recreational purposes. 

The Depot has no designated recreational facilities. The outdoor recreation topics of concern and 

associated objectives and actions are as follows.

OR-1: Public Access, General Safety, and Security

Concern: The consequences of public access regarding general safety and the operational security 

of the mission should be evaluated.

Objective: Establish and incorporate a public access protocol.

Action:

1. Create a public access protocol, if appropriate.

5.11 Public Outreach (EDU)

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin has a goal of promoting environmental partnership and 

stewardship. The goal can be reached by increasing public awareness of environmental programs, 

educating the workforce about the installation’s environmental programs, and training customers on 

installation environmental requirements. Objectives and management actions for outreach and 

education are presented below.

EDU-1: Conservation Awareness

Concern: Conservation awareness is instrumental in creating conditions needed to manage natural 

resources. A conservation awareness program must be directed to both installation and external 

interests if it is to be effective.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

60 | May 2018

Objectives: Provide information to internal and external interested communities regarding natural

resources and associated management programs on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin.

Actions:

1. Improve the general natural resources program knowledge of all persons associated with 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, particularly those who come into regular contact 

with interested persons.

2. Use newspapers, the website, and special displays to inform the surrounding community of 

matters important to Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin natural resources program.

3. Participate in Earth Day and other organized events, as appropriate, and evaluate other 

special events for their usefulness in promoting a stewardship image and conservation 

commitment.

4. Engage local community groups and educate the local community, installation personnel, 

and tenants about the installation natural resources program.

EDU-2: Personnel Training

Concern: Environmental education and communication with installation staff, tenants, and the public 

is a keystone of successful environmental management. Additionally, professional training for 

designated natural resources staff will inform staff about current regulations, technology, and 

studies, and will maintain an effective and professional program.

Objective: Educate military and civilian users and Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin 

workforce on environmental programs on the installation to maintain compliance with environmental 

laws and minimize impacts on natural and cultural resources.

Actions:

1. Encourage natural resources staff to join professional societies and their state/regional 

chapters and to be active in them.

2. Ensure that designated natural resources personnel obtain the one-time or occasional 

refresher training needed to fulfill job requirements (e.g., GIS user training, NEPA training, 

endangered species documentation/consultation training).

3. Evaluate other conferences/workshops, such as the National Military Fish and Wildlife 

Association annual workshop, for their usefulness as training tools and send personnel to 

those most justified, based on current training needs and those most related to Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin activities.

5.12 Surrounding Lands

As mentioned in Section 2.1 the Depot is located on the southeast side of the city of Tracy, 

California in the San Joaquin Valley. Land use in the San Joaquin Valley is predominantly 

agricultural and approximately 90 percent of the land in San Joaquin County is under agricultural use 

(SJMSCP 2000). Land use trends both within the city of Tracy and San Joaquin County are showing 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 61

the conversion of agricultural lands and open space to urban development (SJMSCP 2000 and City 

of Tracy 2011a).

Offsite land use has the potential to affect Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin plans, programs, 

and activities. Offsite management by nearby landowners should be considered in the

implementation of the management actions identified in this INRMP. Offsite development has the 

potential to affect the natural resources or mission priorities discussed in this INRMP. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

62 | May 2018

6 INRMP Implementation Process

6.1 INRMP Implementation

The INRMP program ensures the implementation of year-round, cost-effective management 

activities and projects that meet the requirements of Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin. 

Various organizations at the Depot are responsible for the implementation of the INRMP. Section 1.5 

provides a description of these organizations and personnel. 

Key installation personnel from the Depot will assume an oversight role to ensure the effective 

implementation of this Plan. They will be supported by Depot senior management and Headquarters 

DLA Environmental Management. 

The most recent policy on INRMP implementation is contained in DODI 4715.03 (DOD 2011) and 

DODM 4715.03 (DOD 2013). According to DODM4715.03, an INRMP is considered implemented if 

an installation does the following (DOD 2013):

• Actively requesting and using funds for natural resources management projects, activities 

and other requirements in support of goals, and objectives identified in the INRMP.

• Ensuring that sufficient numbers of professionally trained natural resources management 

personnel are available to perform the tasks required by the INRMP.

• Inviting annual feedback from the appropriate USFWS and State fish and wildlife agency 

offices on the effectiveness of its INRMP.

• Documenting specific INRMP action accomplishments undertaken each year.

• Evaluating the effectiveness of past and current management activities and adapting those 

activities as needed to implement future actions. 

DODI 4715.03 (2011) and the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for a Cooperative Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Program on Military Installations allow a federal agency to enter 

into an agreement with another federal agency for services, when those services can be rendered in 

a more convenient or cost effective manner by another federal agency. INRMP implementation and 

enforcement services can be procured from Federal and State agencies having responsibility for the 

conservation or management of fish and wildlife in accordance with section 670a(d) of the Sikes Act. 

Therefore, the USFWS and CDFW should be given consideration when procuring natural resourcerelated services.

6.2 Annual Work Plan

The purpose of this section is to present a road map for the implementation of specific management 

goals and objectives for several natural resources subject areas. The tasks proposed for this INRMP 

are aggressive and might not be accomplished within the established timelines due to a number of 

factors (e.g., budget and manpower constraints, wartime tasks). However, their importance to the 

proper management of the installation’s natural resources cannot be understated. Therefore, the 

management actions should be modified as part of the annual review of this INRMP by the INRMP 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 63

Working Group to ensure that these tasks are continually emphasized and accomplished when 

practicable. Table 7 provides a brief summary of the estimated oversight required from fiscal year 

2018 through fiscal year 2022 to accomplish the actions identified in Section 5 and Appendix C.

Table 7. Estimated Total Oversight Labor Hours for Implementing 2018 INRMP

INRMP Funding Category Oversight Estimated 

Labor Hours

Ecosystem Management

Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern

Wetlands and Waters of the United States

Watershed Management

Fish and Wildlife Management

Habitat Management

Exotic and Invasive Species Management

Grounds Maintenance

Agricultural Outleasing 

Outdoor Recreation 

Environmental Awareness, Education, and Outreach

Surrounding Lands

Total

6.3 Prioritization of Projects

Project priority within this INRMP is initially determined by funding classification, as defined in DODI 

4715.03, Natural Resources Conservation Program (DOD 2011). DODI 4715.03 discusses recurring 

and non-recurring conservation management requirements. Table 8 defines the recurring and 

non-recurring conservation requirements in DODI 4715.03.

Table 8. Recurring and Non-Recurring Conservation Requirements

Recurring and Non-Recurring Conservation Requirements (DODI 4715.03)

1. Recurring Natural Resources Conservation Management Requirements:

a. Administrative, personnel, and other costs associated with managing the DOD Natural Resources Conservation 

Program that are necessary to meet applicable compliance requirements in Federal and state laws, regulations, 

EOs, and DOD policies, or in direct support of the military mission.

b. DOD components shall give priority to recurring natural resources conservation management requirements 

associated with the operation of facilities, installations, and deployed weapons systems. These activities include 

day-to-day costs of sustaining an effective natural resources management program; and annual requirements, 

including manpower, training, supplies, permits, fees, testing and monitoring, sampling and analysis, reporting 

and recordkeeping, maintenance of natural resources conservation equipment, and compliance selfassessments.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

64 | May 2018

Recurring and Non-Recurring Conservation Requirements (DODI 4715.03)

2. Non-Recurring Natural Resources Management Requirements. 

a. Current Compliance. Includes installation projects and activities to support:

(1) Installations currently out of compliance (e.g., received an enforcement action from an authorized Federal 

or state agency or local authority).

(2) Signed compliance agreement or consent order.

(3) Meeting requirements with applicable federal or state laws, regulations, standards, EOs, or DOD policies.

(4) Immediate and essential maintenance of operational integrity or military mission sustainment.

(5) Projects or activities that will be out of compliance if not implemented in the current program year. Those 

activities include the following:

(a) Environmental analyses for natural resources conservation projects, and monitoring and studies 

required to assess and mitigate potential impacts of the military mission on conservation resources.

(b) Planning documentation, master plans, compatible development planning, and INRMPs.

(c) Natural resources planning-level surveys.

(d) Reasonable and prudent measures included in incidental take statements of biological opinions, 

biological assessments, surveys, monitoring, reporting of assessment results, or habitat protection for 

listed, at-risk, and candidate species so that proposed or continuing actions can be modified in 

consultation with USFWS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service Fisheries Service.

(e) Mitigation to meet existing regulatory permit conditions or written agreements.

(f) Nonpoint source pollution or watershed management studies or actions needed to meet compliance 

dates cited in approved state coastal nonpoint source pollution control plans, as required to meet 

consistency determinations consistent with Coastal Zone Management.

(g) Wetlands delineation critical for the prevention of adverse impacts on wetlands, so that continuing 

actions can be modified to ensure mission continuity.

(h) Compliance with missed deadlines established in DOD executed agreements.

b. Maintenance Requirements: Includes those projects and activities needed to meet an established deadline 

beyond the current program year and maintain compliance. Examples include the following:

(1) Compliance with future deadlines.

(2) Conservation, GIS mapping, and data management to comply with Federal, state, and local regulations, 

EOs, and DOD policy.

(3) Efforts undertaken in accordance with non-deadline specific compliance requirements of leadership 

initiatives.

(4) Wetlands enhancement to minimize wetlands loss and enhance existing degraded wetlands.

(5) Conservation recommendations in biological opinions issued pursuant to the ESA.

c. Enhancement Actions Beyond Compliance. Includes those projects and activities that enhance conservation 

resources or the integrity of the installation mission, or are needed to address overall environmental goals and 

objectives, but are not specifically required by law, regulation, or EO, and are not of an immediate nature. 

Examples include the following:

(1) Community outreach activities, such as International Migratory Bird Day, Earth Day, National Public Lands 

Day, Pollinator Week, and Arbor Day activities.

(2) Educational and public awareness projects, such as interpretive displays, oral histories, Watchable 

Wildlife areas, nature trails, wildlife checklists, and conservation teaching materials.

(3) Restoration or enhancement of natural resources when no specific compliance requirement dictates a 

course or timing of action.

(4) Management and execution of volunteer and partnership programs.

6.4 Funding

Traditional Funding Sources and Mechanisms

All requirements set forth in this INRMP requiring the expenditure of Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin funds are expressly subject to the availability of appropriations and the requirements of the 

Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341). No obligation undertaken by Defense Distribution Depot San 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 65

Joaquin under the terms of this INRMP shall require, or be interpreted to require, a commitment to 

expend funds not appropriated by the Congress for a particular purpose. If the installation cannot 

perform any obligation set forth in this INRMP due to the non-availability of funds, Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin intends for the remainder of the agreement to be executed.

While some of the actions described in this INRMP could be funded under “Environmental 

Compliance” in addition to “Conservation Resources Management” such as Legacy funds, the most 

probable funding sources for the majority of the actions are Operations and Maintenance Funds, and 

Agricultural Reimbursement Authority Funds. While the categories listed provide a brief summary of 

budget priorities and funding sources, it is the responsibility of the installation Environmental 

Manager to carefully examine and adhere to the entirety of the referenced DODI, and any 

subsequent supplements or revisions, in preparing each year’s budget for implementation of the 

actions identified in this INRMP.

DOD cannot commit funding before Congress makes it available (DOD 2011). In order to program 

for future expected expenses, DOD employs the Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution 

(PPBE) budget process. The PPBE is an ongoing process and is continuously reviewed and refined. 

Environmental budget requirements are identified by the installation staff, submitted to its Major 

Command, and then included in the Program Objectives Memorandum (POM), which is modified 

and forwarded to the Chief of Staff, to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and to 

the President. 

The Office of Management and Budget considers funding for the preparation and implementation of 

this INRMP, as required by the Sikes Act, and the associated NEPA analysis and documentation to 

be a high priority. However, the reality is that not all of the projects and programs identified in this 

INRMP will receive immediate funding. As such, these programs and projects have been placed into 

three priority-based categories: (1) high-priority projects, (2) important projects, and (3) projects of 

lesser importance. The prioritization of the projects is based on need, and need is based on a 

project’s importance in moving the natural resources management program closer towards 

successfully achieving its goal. 

Non-Traditional Funding Sources and Mechanisms

Nontraditional sources of funding for natural resources programs include non-appropriated 

reimbursable funds (i.e., agricultural or grazing outleasing, forestry, hunting and fishing fees), and 

appropriated funds (e.g., DOD Legacy Program). Installations, however, should not depend on these 

programs to fully fund their natural resources management programs.

1. Agricultural Reimbursement Authority. Of the non-traditional sources, the Agricultural 

Reimbursement Authority funds are most applicable to Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin. Money collected through the leasing of Army-owned property for agricultural use is 

directed back into the natural resources program and reallocated by the DA. These funds are 

available as long as the agricultural lease is in place to natural resource managers primarily 

for agricultural outlease improvements, and potentially for natural resources management 

and stewardship projects once the primary objective is met. Agricultural and grazing outlease 

revenues are available for the following:
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

66 | May 2018

• Administrative expenses of lease (salaries of professional and technical support of the 

grazing and cropland programs in direct support of agricultural or grazing outlease which 

meet INRMP goals and objectives, training, scientific meetings, parts and supplies);

• Initiation, improvement, and perpetuation of agricultural or grazing outleases (increased 

productivity, reduced soil erosion, and fencing);

• Implementation of INRMP Stewardship Projects (compliance measures should be 

budgeted through the POM process).

2. Legacy Funds. The Legacy Resource Management Program (Legacy Program) is a special 

congressionally-mandated initiative to fund military conservation projects. The Legacy 

Program can provide funding for a variety of conservation projects, such as regional 

ecosystem management initiatives, habitat preservation efforts, archaeological 

investigations, invasive species control, monitoring and predicting migratory patterns of birds 

and animals, and national partnerships and initiatives, such as National Public Lands Day. 

3. Fish and Wildlife Fees. User fees collected for the privilege of hunting, fishing, or trapping 

will be collected, deposited and used in accordance with the Sikes Act (10 U.S.C. § 2671) 

and the DOD financial management regulations. The Sikes Act specifies that user fees 

collected for hunting, fishing or trapping shall be used only on the installation where 

collected. Further, collections will be used exclusively for fish and wildlife conservation and 

management on the installation where collected. 

4. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) Funds. SERDP 

is DOD’s corporate environmental Research and Development program, planned and 

executed in full partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE) and USEPA, with 

participation by numerous other Federal and non-Federal organizations. SERDP funds for 

environmental and conservation are allocated through a competitive process. Within its 

broad areas of interest, the SERDP focuses on Cleanup, Compliance, Conservation, and 

Pollution Prevention technologies. The purpose of the conservation technology program is to 

use research and development to provide improved inventory and monitoring capabilities, 

develop more effective impact and risk assessment techniques, and provide improved 

mitigation and rehabilitation capabilities. 

5. Non-DOD Funds. Many grant programs are available for natural resources management 

projects, such as watershed management and restoration, habitat restoration, and wetland 

and riparian area restoration. When federally funded, these programs typically require nonFederal matching funds. However, installations may partner with other groups to propose 

eligible projects. Following are examples of grant programs:

a. The Five-Star Restoration Challenge Grants Program, sponsored by both Federal and 

nonprofit organizations, provides modest financial assistance in support of communitybased wetland and riparian restoration projects. One of the goals of the program is to 

build partnerships between Federal, state, local, and nonprofit organizations, and to 

foster local natural resources stewardship.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 67

b. National Public Lands Day Grants. Installations are eligible to receive DOD Legacy funds 

in support of National Public Lands Day. Projects eligible for funds include habitat 

restoration, wetland restoration, and stream cleanup.

Currently, Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin personnel are responsible for implementing 

programs at the installation other than the natural resources management responsibilities that will be 

necessary to implement this INRMP. Additional sources of temporary labor, such as seasonal 

employees (e.g., grounds maintenance summer hires), could be used to augment current staff. 

Implementation of a number of projects discussed in this INRMP will require active outside 

assistance. The outside assistance might come from state and Federal agencies, private 

consortiums and organizations, universities, and contractors. Using these resources is the most 

efficient and cost-effective method for acquiring expertise on a temporary basis. The INRMP 

Working Group should assess the level of additional resources necessary to implement this Plan 

fully during the INRMP annual review process and determine the extent to which outside assistance 

will be required.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

68 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 69

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

70 | May 2018

7 References

Buck-Diaz et al 2013 Buck-Diaz, J.B., S. Batiuk and J. Evans. 2012. California Rangeland 

Vegetation Alliances and Associations of the Great Valley Ecoregion, 

California. Final report to the National Resource Conservation Service.

CA-CESU 2004 California Cooperative Ecosystem Management Unit Strategic Plan (CACESU). November 2004.

CalEPA 2015 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). Climate Change 

Research Plan for California. 2015.

California DOC 2010 California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2010. 2010 Fault Activity

Map of California. Available online: 

<http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html#>. Accessed 

20 May 2014.

Cal-IPC 2006 California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2006. California Invasive Plant 

Inventory. Cal-IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council: 

Berkeley, CA. Available online: <http:www.cal-ipc.org>. 

City of Tracy 2011a City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy Sustainability Action Plan. 1 February 

2011. Available online: 

<http://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/documents/Sustainability_Action_Plan.pdf>. 

Accessed 15 February 2016.

City of Tracy 2011b City of Tracy. 2011. City of Tracy General Plan. 1 February 2011. Available 

online: <http://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/documents/2011_General_Plan.pdf>. 

Accessed 24 November 2015.

CDFG 2012 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing 

Owl Mitigation. March 2012. Available online: 

<https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true>

. Accessed 15 February 2016.

CDFW 2015 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. Draft California 

State Wildlife Action Plan. Available online: < 

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/SWAP>

Clark et al 2005 Clark, Jr., H.O., G.D. Warrick, B.L. Cypher, P.A. Kelly, D.F. Williams, and 

D.E. Grubbs. 2005. Competitive interactions between endangered kit foxes 

and non-native red foxes. Western North American Naturalist 65:153-163.

CNDDB 2015 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2015. State of California 

Department of Fish and Game Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, 

California. Available online: < http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/>. 

Accessed 24 August 2015. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 71

Cypher 2006 Cypher, B.L. 2006. Kit fox conservation in the San Luis Drainage Study 

Unit. Unpublished report to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation South-Central 

California Area Office. California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered 

Species Recovery Program. Fresno, California.

Cypher et al 2005 Cypher, B. L., P.A. Kelly, D.F. Williams, H. O. Clark Jr., A. D. Brown, and S. 

E. Phillips. 2005a. Foxes in farmland: recovery of the endangered San 

Joaquin kit fox on private lands in California. CSU, Stanislaus, Endangered 

Species Recovery Program, Fresno, CA. Prepared for the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation. June 27, 2005.

Cypher et al 2007 Cypher, B. L., S. E. Phillips, and P. A. Kelly. 2007. Habitat suitability and 

potential corridors for San Joaquin kit fox in the San Luis Unit, Fresno, 

Kings, and Merced Counties. California. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation, South-Central California Area Office, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program. May 22, 2007.

DLA 1997 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 1997. Burrowing Owl Management Plan, 

Sharpe Depot. Prepared by Albion Environmental Inc. November 1997.

DLA 1999 DLA. 1999. Natural Resources Assessment for Defense Distribution Depot

– San Joaquin Tracy Site. Prepared by U.S. Army Environmental Center 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. September 1999.

DLA 2004 DLA. 2004. Environmental Assessment of the Summary Master Plan 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California. July 2004.

DLA 2009a DLA. 2009. Defense Logistics Agency Instruction 4108: Natural and 

Cultural Resources Conservation Program. September 2009.

DLA 2009b DLA. 2009. DDJC Tracy Site Potable Water Well Blending Plan. 5 October 

2009. 

DLA 2010 DLA. 2010. Final Water Conservation Plan for Defense Distribution Depot

San Joaquin, California – Sharpe and Tracy Sites. August 2010.

DLA 2011a DLA. 2011. DLA Regulation 1000.22: Environmental Considerations in

Defense Logistics Agency Actions. December 2011.

DLA 2011b DLA. 2011. 2011 Annual Burrowing Owl Breeding Census at Sharpe Depot

and Tracy Site Annex. August 2011. 

DLA 2011c DLA. 2011. Draft Final SPCC Plan – DDJC Tracy Site. May 2011. 

DLA 2012a DLA. 2012. Updated Environmental Baseline Survey for Defense

Distribution Depot San Joaquin – Tracy Site. June 2012. 

DLA 2012b DLA. 2012. Historic Resource Survey at Tracy Site. December 2012.

DLA 2012c DLA 2012. Well Monitoring Program. 2011 Annual Monitoring Report, 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin – Tracy Site. January 2012.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

72 | May 2018

DLA 2013a DLA. 2013. Real Property Master Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San

Joaquin. December 2013.

DLA 2013b DLA. 2013. Biological Resources Survey Report at Tracy Site. February 

2013.

DLA 2013c DLA. 2013. 2013 Annual Burrowing Owl Breeding Census at Sharpe Depot. 

August 2013. 

DLA 2013d DLA. 2013. Sustainability Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. 

February 2013. 

DLA 2013e DLA. 2013. Net-Zero Energy Study for Defense Distribution Depot, San

Joaquin. 5 March 2013. 

DLA 2014a DLA. 2014. Environmental Assessment Addressing Implementation of the

Real Property Master Plan. Defense Distribution Depot – San Joaquin 

Tracy Site. 

DLA 2014b DLA. 2014. Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Defense Distribution

Depot, San Joaquin – Tracy Site. June 2014. 

DLA 2014c DLA. 2014. Pollution Prevention Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San

Joaquin – Tracy Site. February 2014.

DLA 2015 DLA. 2015. Burrowing Owl Breeding Census 2015 at San Joaquin Defense 

Distribution Depot. Tracy, California. September 2015.

DLA 2016 DLA. 2016. Integrated Pest Management Plan for Defense Distribution

Depot, San Joaquin. January 2016.

DOD 2002 Department of Defense (DoD). 2002. Update Guidance for Implementation 

of the Sikes Act Improvement Act. 10 October 2002. 

DOD 2008 DOD 2008. Department of Defense Instruction 4150.07, Pest Management 

Program. 29 May 2008.

DOD 2011 DOD. 2011. Department of Defense Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources 

Conservation Program. 16 March 2011.

DOD 2012 DOD. 2012. Department of Defense Technical Guide No. 37, Integrated

Management of Stray Animals on Military Installations. Armed Forces Pest 

Management Board. 25 May 2012.

DOD 2013 DOD. 2013. Department of Defense Manual 4715.03, Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan (INRMP) Implementation Manual. 25 

November 2013.

DOD PIF 2009 DOD Partners In Flight (PIF). 2009. Factsheet About DoD Partners in 

Flight: Bird Conservation Programs in the Military. August 2009.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 73

IPaC 2015 USFWS. 2015. IPaC Trust Resources Report. Tracy Site. San Francisco 

Bay-delta Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. 31 July 2015.

NCDC 2015 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). 1981 – 2010 U.S. Climate Normals. 

National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Department of 

Commerce. Available online: 

<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html>. Accessed 

25 August 2015.

Parrish 2018 Parrish, James. 2018. Personal communication with HDR regarding the 

update of the agriculture lease in 2018. 28 February 2018.

Rich et al 2004 Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, 

G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, 

J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, 

C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, 

NY. Available online: < http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ >.

Rosenberg et al 

2016

K. V. Rosenberg, J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J.D. 

Alexander, C. J. Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. 

F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. Demarest, W. E. Easton, J.J. Giocomo, 

R.H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, 

H. Stabins, J. Stanton, T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight Landbird 

Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United 

States. Partners in Flight Science Committee. Available online: < 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/plans/landbird-conservation-plan/ >.

San Joaquin County 

2010

San Joaquin County. 2010. San Joaquin Countywide General Plan 2010. 

Available online: <http://www.sjgov.org/commdev/cgibin/cdyn.exe?grp=planning&htm=generalplan>. Accessed 20 May 2014.

San Joaquin County 

2014

San Joaquin County. 2014. General Plan land use for unincorporated 

portions of San Joaquin County. Accessed via San Joaquin County District 

Viewer. Available online: 

<http://sjmap.org/website/DistrictViewer/Viewer.asp>. Accessed 20 May 

2014.

SJMSCP 2000 San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space 

Plan (SJMSCP). San Joaquin Multi-Species Conservation Plan Steering 

Committee, San Joaquin County, CA. 14 November 2000.

URS 2010 URS. DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California: Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin – Tracy Site Second Five-year Review Report – Draft. 

Prepared for HQ AFCEE/EXA. August 2010.

U.S. Army 2006 U.S. Army. 2006. Guidance for Implementation of the Sikes Act 

Improvement Act. 25 May 2006.

U.S. Army 2007 U.S. Army. 2007. Army Regulation (AR) 200-1: Environmental Protection

and Enhancement. 13 December 2007.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

74 | May 2018

USDA 1992 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

USDA 1999 United State Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service. 1999. 

Natural Resources Assessment for Defense Distribution Depot – San 

Joaquin Tracy Site. U.S. Army Environmental Center and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, September.

USDA 2006 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 2006. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of

the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Handbook 296.

USEPA 2013 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Nonattainment 

Status for Each County by Year for California. As of 5 December 2013. 

Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/anay_pa.html>. 

Accessed 19 May 2014.

USFWS 1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Recovery plan for upland 

species of the San Joaquin Valley, California, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS 1999 USFWS. 1999. USFWS San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the 

Northern Range. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, 

California. Available online: < https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/SurveyProtocols-Guidelines/Documents/kitfox_no_protocol.pdf >.

USFWS 2001 USFWS. 2001. USFWS Standardized Recommendations for the protection 

of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox prior to or during ground disturbance. 

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, California. Available 

online: < https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Survey-ProtocolsGuidelines/Documents/kitfox_no_protocol.pdf >.

USFWS 2008 USFWS. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Division of Migratory Bird Management. Arlington, Virginia. 

Available online: <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>. December 2008. 

USFWS 2010 USFWS. 2010. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) 5-Year 

Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Sacramento, California.

Warrick et al 2007 Warrick, G.D., H.O. Clark, Jr., P.A. Kelly, and D.F. Williams, and B.L. 

Cypher. 2007. Use of agricultural lands by San Joaquin kit foxes. Western 

North American Naturalist 67:270-277.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | 75

This page intentionally left blank.

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | A-1

A

Acronyms and 

Abbreviations

Appendix A
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

A-2 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | A-3

AR Army Regulation

BCC Bird of Conservation Concern

BMP Best Management Practice

CA-CESU Californian Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit

Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNPS California Native Plant Society

CWA Clean Water Act

DA Department of the Army

DDRW Defense Distribution Region-West

DERA Defense Environmental Restoration Account

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

DOD Department of Defense

DODI Department of Defense Instruction

DODM Department of Defense Manual

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

ERP Environmental Restoration Program

ESA Endangered Species Act

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GHG greenhouse gas

HQ Headquarters 

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PIF Partners in Flight
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

A-4 | May 2018

POM Program Objectives Memorandum

PPBES Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution System

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SSC species of special concern

SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

U.S.C. United States Code

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAEC U.S. Army Environmental Command

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | B-1

B

Relevant Environmental 

Laws, Regulations, 

Policies, Guidance, 

Instructions, and Orders

Appendix B
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

B-2 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | B-3

FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 

1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996)

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 

U.S.C. 757)

Animal Damage Control Act (7 U.S.C. 426 et 

seq.)

Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341 et seq.)

Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.)

Archaeological Resource Protection Act 

Regulations (18 CFR 1312)

Archeological and Historical Preservation Act 

of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.)

Archeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 668 et seq.)

Base Closure and Realignment Act (Part A of 

title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 

U.S.C. 2687)

Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

seq.)

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 

(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)

Conservation and Rehabilitation Program on 

Military and Public Lands (16 U.S.C. 670 

et seq.)

Conservation and Rehabilitation Programs on 

Military and Public Lands (Public Law 93–

452)

Cooperative Conservation (Executive Order 

13352)

Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 

on Implementing NEPA Procedures (40 

CFR 1500–1508)

Curation of Federally Owned and 

Administered Archaeological Collections 

(36 CFR 79)

Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

(10 U.S.C. 2701)

Department of Defense Appropriation Act of 

1991 (PL 102–393)

Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places (36 

CFR 63)

Dredge and Fill Nationwide Permit Program 

(33 CFR 330)

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 

Plants (50 CFR 17)

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

Entering Military, Naval, or Coast Guard 

Property (18 U.S.C. 1382)

Environmental Effects in the United States of 

Department of Defense Actions (32 CFR 

188)

USEPA Guidelines for Resource Recovery 

Facilities (40 CFR 245)

USEPA National Drinking Water Regulations 

(40 CFR 141–143)

USEPA National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit Regulations 

(40 CFR 122)

USEPA Regulations Designating Areas for Air 

Quality Planning (40 CFR 81)

USEPA Regulations for Ambient Air 

Monitoring Reference and Equivalent 

Methods (40 CFR 53)

USEPA Regulations for Pesticide Programs 

(40 CFR 150–186)

USEPA Regulations Implementing the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(40 CFR 260–270)
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

B-4 | May 2018

USEPA Regulations on Criteria and 

Standards for the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (40 CFR 

125)

USEPA Regulations on Discharge of Oil (40 

CFR 110)

USEPA Regulations on Disposal Site 

Determination under the CWA (40 CFR 

231)

USEPA Regulations on Implementation of 

NEPA Procedures (40 CFR 6)

USEPA Regulations on Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Use (40 CFR 162)

USEPA Regulations on Land Disposal 

Restrictions (40 CFR 268)

USEPA Regulations on National Primary and 

Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(40 CFR 50)

USEPA Regulations on Regional Consistency 

under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR 56)

USEPA Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, Submittal, Approval, and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans (40 

CFR 51–52)

USEPA Requirements for Water Quality 

Planning and Management (40 CFR 130)

USEPA Special Exemptions from 

Requirements of the Clean Air Act (40 

CFR 69)

Erosion Protection Act (33 U.S.C. 426)

Farmland Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et 

seq.)

Federal Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards (42 U.S.C. 4321)

Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal 

Management Programs (15 CFR 930)

Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 (42 

U.S.C. 6961)

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 

136 et seq.)

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 

U.S.C. 1701)

Federal Noxious Weed Act (7 U.S.C. 2801 et 

seq.)

Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa et 

seq.)

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean 

Water Act) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

2901 et seq.)

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 

661 et seq.)

Fish and Wildlife Service List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17)

Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 

1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)

Floodplain Management (Executive Order 

11988, as amended by Executive Order 

12148 and 13286)

Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage 

Relief Act (16 U.S.C. 620 et seq.)

Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et 

seq.)

Hunting and Fishing on Federal Lands (10 

U.S.C. 2671 et seq.)

Implementation of Section 311 of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act of October 18, 

1972, as amended, and the Oil Pollution 

Act of 1990 (Executive Order 12777, as 

amended by Executive Order 13286)

Interagency Cooperation Endangered Species 

Act of 1973(50 CFR 402)

Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112)

Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 701) and Lacey Act 

Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371–

3378)
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | B-5

Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 

U.S.C. 4601 et seq.)

Legacy Resource Protection Program Act (PL 

101–511)

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

715 et seq.)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703–711)

Migratory Birds List (50 CFR 10.13)

Military Construction Authorization Act of 

1956–Leases; non-excess property (10 

U.S.C. 2667)

Military Construction Authorization Act of 

1956–Sale of Certain Interests in Lands; 

Logs (10 U.S.C. 2665)

Military Construction Authorization Act of 

1956–Military Reservations and Facilities: 

Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping (10 U.S.C. 

2671)

Military Construction Authorization Act of 1975 

(10 U.S.C. 2665)

Military Reservation and Facilities: Hunting, 

Fishing and Trapping (10 U.S.C. 2671)

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act (16 U.S.C. 

528)

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

National Heritage Policy Act of 1979 (16 

U.S.C. 470)

National Historic Landmarks Program (36 

CFR 65)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 

U.S.C. 470 et seq.)

National Historic Preservation Act Regulations 

for the Protection of Historic Properties 

(36 CFR 800)

National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 

60)

National Register of Historic Places, current 

edition (36 CFR 60 78, 79, 800, and 1228)

National Trails System Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 

1271)

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001–

3013)

Natural Resources Management Program (32 

CFR 190)

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.) 

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention 

and Control Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

4701et seq.)

North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.)

Noxious Plant Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1241).

Off-Road Vehicles Use on Public Lands 

(Executive Order 11989)

Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 

2701 et seq.)

Outdoor Recreation–Federal/State Program 

Act (16 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.)

Outer Continental Shelf Air Regulations (40 

CFR 55)

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act (16 U.S.C. 

3771 et seq.)

Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. 151–167)

Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 13101 et 

seq.)

Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality (Executive Order 

11514, as amended by Executive Order 

11541 and 11991)

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment (Executive Order 11593)

Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 

11990, as amended by Executive Order 

12608)
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

B-6 | May 2018

Recreational Fisheries (Executive Order 

12962, as amended by Executive Order 

13474)

Regulations Concerning Marine Mammals (50 

CFR 10)

Regulations Concerning Marine Mammals (50 

CFR 18, 216, 228)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 

U.S.C. 6901 et seq.)

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to 

Protect Migratory Birds (Executive Order 

13186)

Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300(f) et 

seq.)

Sales of Forest Products on Federal Lands 

(10 U.S.C. 2665 et seq.)

Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

670a et seq.)

Soil and Water Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 

2001 et seq.)

Soil Conservation (16 U.S.C. 5901)

Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, 

and Transportation Management 

(Executive Order 13423)

Water Pollution Prevention and Control (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)

Wetland Resources (16 U.S.C. 3901)

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1972 (16 

U.S.C. 1701)

FEDERAL GUIDELINES

Cooperative Agreement between the 

Department of Defense and the Nature 

Conservancy for Assistance in Natural 

Resources Inventory

Memorandum of Agreement for Federal 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 

Program and Addendum (Partners in 

Flight-Aves De Las Americas) among the 

Department of Defense, through Each of 

the Military Services, and Over 110 Other 

Federal and State Agencies and 

Nongovernmental Organizations

Memorandum of Agreement for Professional 

and Technical Assistance Conducting 

Biological Surveys, Research and Related 

Activities between the Department Of 

Defense and the National Biological 

Service of the Department of the Interior

Memorandum of Understanding between 

Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and the International 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

for a Cooperative Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Program on 

Military Installations

Memorandum of Understanding between the 

Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Department of Defense with Respect to 

Integrated Pest Management

Memorandum of Understanding for Watchable 

Wildlife Programs

USACE Regional Supplement to the Corps of 

Engineers 2008 Wetland Delineation 

Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0).
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | B-7

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY, REGULATIONS AND GUIDANCE

AR 200–1, Environmental Protection and

Enhancement (2007)

AR 210–20, Real Property Master Planning

for Army Installations (2005)

AR 350–19, The Army Sustainable Range

Program (2005)

AR 405–80, Granting Use of Real Estate

(1997)

Army Goals and Implementing Guidance For 

Natural Resources Planning Level Survey 

and Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (1997)

Army Policy and Guidance on Critical Habitat 

Designations (2001)

Army Policy Guidance for Fish & Wildlife 

Conservation Fund (2001)

Army Policy Guidance for Management and 

Control of Invasive Species (2001)

Army Policy Guidance on Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (2001)

Department of Army Memorandum, 

Sustainable Design and Development 

Policy Update – SPiRiT to LEED 

Transition (2006)

Department of Army Pam 420–7, Natural

Resources – Land, Forest, and Wildlife

Management (1977)

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

Memorandum, Integrated Natural

Resource Management Plan Template

(2006)

DLA Instruction 4108, Natural and Cultural

Resources Conservation Programs (2009)

DLA Regulation 1000.22, Environmental

Considerations in Defense Logistics

Agency Actions (2011)

DOD Directive 3200.15, Sustaining Access to

the Live Training and Test Domain (2013)

DOD Directive 4705.1, Management of LandBased Water Resources in Support of

Joint Contingency Operations (1992)

DOD Directive 4715.1E, Environment, Safety, 

and Occupational Health (ESOH) (2005)

DOD INRMP Handbook, Resources for

INRMP Implementation (2005)

DOD Instruction 4001.01, Installation Support

(2008)

DOD Instruction 4150.07, DoD Pest

Management Program (2008)

DOD Instruction 4165.57, Air Installations

Compatible Use Zones (1977)

DOD Instruction 4715.03, Natural Resources

Conservation Program (2011)

DOD Instruction 4715.4, Pollution Prevention

(1996)

DOD Instruction 4715.06, Environmental

Compliance in the United States (2015)

DOD Instruction 4715.07, Defense

Environmental Restoration Program

(DERP) (2013)

DOD Instruction 6050.05, DoD Hazard

Communication Program (2006)

DOD Instruction 6055.6, DoD Fire and

Emergency Services Program (2006)

DOD Memorandum on Implementation of 

Ecosystem Management in DoD (2002)

Army Memorandum Emergency Consultations 

under the Endangered Species Act (2002)

Supplemental Army Policy Guidance on 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (2002)
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

B-8 | May 2018

APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION

Aquatic Invasive Species (Fish & Game Code 

2300-2302)

Birds (Fish & Game Code 3500-3864)

California Endangered Species Act (Fish & 

Game Code 2050 et seq.)

California Environmental Quality Act (Public 

Resources Code 21000-21177)

California Riparian Habitat Conservation 

Program (Fish & Game Code 1385-1391)

California Waterfowl Habitat Program (Fish & 

Game Code 3460-3467)

California Watershed Protection and 

Restoration Act (Public Resources Code 

5808-5808.2)

California Wildlife Protection Act (Fish & 

Game Code 2780-2799.6)

California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land 

Conservation Act (Public Resources Code 

5900 et seq.)

Cobey-Alquist Flood Management Act (Water 

Code 8400-8415)

Conservation of Aquatic Resources (Fish & 

Game Code 1700)

Conservation of Wildlife Resources (Fish & 

Game Code 1801-1802)

Conservation, Development, and Utilization of 

State Water Resources (Water Code 

10004-10013)

Fish (Fish & Game Code 6400-6930) 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Act of 

1984 (Fish & Game Code 2600-2651)

Fish and Wildlife Protection and Conservation 

(Fish & Game Code 1600-1616)

Inland Wetlands Conservation Program (Fish 

& Game Code 1400-1431)

Mammals (Fish & Game Code 4150-4904)

Management of Fish and Wildlife on Military 

Lands (Fish & Game Code 3450-3453)

Native Plant Protection (Fish & Game Code 

1900-1913)

Native Species Conservation and 

Enhancement (Fish & Game Code 1750-

1772)

Natural Community Conservation Planning 

Act (Fish & Game Code 2800-2835)

Pesticides and Pest Control Operations (Food 

and Agriculture Code 6000 et seq.)

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 

(Water Code 13000 et seq.)

Refuges (Fish & Game Code 10500-10932)

Reptiles and Amphibians (Fish & Game Code 

5000-5050)

Stream Alteration Controls (Water Code 5653, 

1601 et seq.)

The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and 

Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal 

Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Public 

Resources Code 75001-75130)

Urban Forestry (Public Resources Code 

4799.06-4799.12)

Watershed, Clean Beaches, and Water 

Quality Act (Public Resources Code 

30901-30960)

Wetlands Mitigation Banking (Fish & Game 

Code 1850-1852)

Wetlands Preservation (Public Resources 

Code 5810-5818.2)

Wildlife and Natural Areas Conservation 

Program (Fish & Game Code 2700-2729)
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-1

C

INRMP Projects, 

Schedules, and 

Implementation Table

Appendix C
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

C-2 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-3

Table C-1 contains natural resources projects proposed for Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin 

and includes the INRMP subject area, a specific INRMP issue number, a project description, the 

corresponding law or regulation, DOD Class, proposed fiscal year for implementing each 

recommendation, and estimated costs for completion. 

The projects presented in Table C-1 strive to enhance natural resources on Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin, without impacting other installation plans and activities. Achieving these 

recommendations will require development to be conducted in an environmentally sensitive way 

(i.e., smart growth) and requires cooperation between the installation garrison, environmental 

offices, facilities and maintenance, and operations. Any future changes in mission, activity, or 

technology should be analyzed to assess their impact on natural resources. As new installation 

plans and DLA guidance and regulations are developed, they should be integrated with the drivers 

and management actions resulting from this INRMP.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

C-4 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-1

Table C-1. Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin INRMP Projects and Implementation Table

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Ecosystem 

Management

ECO-1 Complete this version of the INRMP and use it as a beginning 

point to develop an ecosystem management approach to 

natural resources management.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018

Ecosystem 

Management

ECO-1 As needed, develop a process and schedule for coordinating 

with agencies to allow for agency comment on management 

plans.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Ecosystem 

Management

ECO-2 Foster landscape-scale thinking among installation staff and 

provide them with appropriate training if needed.

DODI 4715.03, 

AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Ecosystem 

Management

ECO-2 Implement actions, once plans are developed or revised, 

identified in the INRMP.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-1 Continue to conduct floristic and fauna surveys at established 

intervals (every 5 years) to determine any changes to the state 

of federally listed plants/animals located on the installation.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2b 2019

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-1 Maintain a list of special status plant and animal species with 

the potential to occur at Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-1 If listed species are found, or if species already known on the 

installation become listed, modify this INRMP for adequate 

management or protection of the species.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-1 Consider conducting remote sensing (e.g., trail cameras) 

surveys for the San Joaquin kit fox. Coordinate with USFWS to 

determine whether a reimbursable agreement for the surveys 

could be developed.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

C-2 | May 2018

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-2 Continue monitoring special status species as described in this 

INRMP and adapt monitoring and management actions as 

needed. Use monitoring information and other information 

gleaned to guide adaptive management.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2b 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-2 Initiate habitat improvement projects to conserve biodiversity 

and protect plant and animal habitats, as funding is available 

and when such projects will not adversely affect the military 

mission. 

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-2 Periodically review the natural resources management 

program to ensure that management actions do not adversely 

impact species of concern habitat.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-3 Implement species-specific and overall conservation and 

monitoring measures described in this INRMP and those 

developed in future biological opinions. 

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2019

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-3 Develop special status species identification sheets for 

distribution to installation personnel. Provide information on 

how to avoid impacting these species.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-3 Continue use of the established Environmental Review 

process to identify actions that result in adverse effects on 

special status species or habitats. Coordinate measures with 

the proponent to reduce adverse effects. 

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-3 Provide an environmental coordination map, which includes 

the following information: (1) Regulated areas in which activity 

restrictions are in place, (2) Special status species locations 

where pre-planning efforts might be necessary.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2019

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Implement annual breeding season census surveys for 

burrowing owls throughout the installation.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-3

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Implement pre-construction mitigation measures within 

suitable burrowing owl habitat including: pre-activity surveys; 

passive relocation of burrowing owls from construction zones; 

mitigating impacts to occupied burrows; installing and 

maintaining artificial burrows; mitigating impacts to unoccupied 

burrows; and mitigating impacts to foraging habitat.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period (1 

February through 31 August) and avoid impacting burrows 

occupied during the non-breeding season by resident 

burrowing owls. Avoid direct destruction of burrows through 

chaining, disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or 

agricultural development. Place visible markers near burrows 

to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery do not 

collapse burrows.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Outside of the nesting period (1 February through 31 August), 

mow areas that support borrowing owls to prevent invasive 

plants from reaching a height of approximately 5 inches.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Develop and implement worker awareness program to 

increase the on-site worker’s recognition and commitment to 

burrowing owl protection. Ensure agricultural outlease terms 

include these BMPs for protection of the species and 

maintenance of habitat as compatible with agricultural uses.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Avoid fumigation of any animal burrows. Do not use treated 

bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas 

where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., 

sites observed with nesting owls, foraging habitat). Restrict the 

use of treated grain to poison mammal to bait stations placed

in areas outside of burrowing owl habitat, only apply during the 

month of January, and use only when integrated pest 

management options are not effective (e.g., mechanical). 

Broadcast baiting is not permitted.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

C-4 | May 2018

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Conduct a biological feasibility study to explore the potential 

for setting aside a portion of the agricultural annex for 

burrowing owl habitat. This study should include an 

assessment of current and past inhabited areas on the annex, 

short and long-term recommendations for managing or 

restoring those areas to suitable habitat conditions, and an 

analysis of the appropriate size and configuration of land that 

would be biologically meaningful for burrowing owl 

conservation.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Conduct a logistical and financial feasibility study to determine 

the potential for setting aside a portion of the agricultural 

annex for burrowing owl habitat conservation (e.g., agricultural 

lease renewal schedules, potential mission impacts, 

integration with the Installation Master Plan).

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Conduct a logistical and financial feasibility study to determine 

the potential for setting aside a portion of the agricultural 

annex for burrowing owl habitat conservation (e.g., agricultural 

lease renewal schedules, potential mission impacts, 

integration with the Installation Master Plan).

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 Ensure collaboration with CDFW and USFWS regarding 

burrowing owl habitat management planning during the annual 

INRMP review.

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Threatened, 

Endangered, and 

Species of 

Concern

TES-4 In order to facilitate habitat for burrowing owls, proactively 

manage for the presence of ground squirrels when not in 

conflict with the military mission. 

Sikes Act, ESA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Wetlands and 

Waters of the U.S.

WT-1 Conduct Environmental Review for activities that could affect 

percolation/evaporation ponds.

Sikes Act, CWA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Wetlands and 

Waters of the U.S.

WT-1 Plan development activities to avoid native wetland vegetation 

impacts to the maximum extent possible when conducting nonnative and excess vegetation removal for pond effectiveness.

Sikes Act, CWA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-5

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Wetlands and 

Waters of the U.S.

WT-1 Maintain water quality to protect surface waters and ponds 

from excessive sediment laden runoff.

Sikes Act, CWA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Wetlands and 

Waters of the U.S.

WT-1 Maintain a “no mow” zone around the pond to maintain any 

native trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants.

Sikes Act, CWA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2c 2018-2022

Watershed 

Management

WM-1 Implement provisions of the SWPPP to include BMPs, 

monitoring, reporting, and modifying BMPs as needed. 

Sikes Act, CWA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Watershed 

Management

WM-1 To the maximum extent feasible, maintain buffers between 

percolation/evaporation ponds, riparian areas, or drainages 

and construction or other ground-disturbance areas.

Sikes Act, CWA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2c 2018-2022

Watershed 

Management

WM-1 Continue groundwater monitoring and remediation program 

and continue to prohibit the use of shallow groundwater from 

on-site wells within the contaminated zone.

Sikes Act, CWA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-1 Continue to do biotic surveys every 5 years, prior to the 

INRMP revision, to monitor significant changes in wildlife 

species or populations present on Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin. 

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2a 2019

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-1 Continue documenting nongame species that are incidentally 

observed during species of concern surveys.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-1 Maintain an updated inventory of plants and animals present 

on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-1 Ensure that the natural resources staff members responsible 

for wildlife management and conservation obtain focused 

training regarding management of these resources as related 

to conservation on a military installation.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

C-6 | May 2018

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-2 Conduct surveys of activity sites as needed to determine if 

migratory bird nests are present and active. If necessary, 

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin will apply for an 

appropriate permit for intentional take of migratory birds.

Sikes Act, MBTA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-2 Work with project proponents and Defense Distribution Depot 

San Joaquin directorates to develop effective management for 

minimizing the unintentional take of migratory birds.

Sikes Act, MBTA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-2 Avoid and minimize impacts on migratory birds in and around 

the installation as individual projects are developed.

Sikes Act, MBTA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-2 Follow management recommendations in the IPMP to 

discourage birds from entering or nesting on buildings.

Sikes Act, MBTA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-3 Use state and federal agencies to assist with wildlife 

management.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-3 Explore opportunities to conduct research through universities 

to assist with wildlife management.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-3 Use contractors or other federal or state agencies to assist 

with fish and wildlife management.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-3 Explore collaborative opportunities with local Boy Scout troops, 

Girl Scout troops, and other community organizations to 

complete specific tasks to benefit natural resources.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Fish and Wildlife 

Management

FW-3 The USFWS has the potential to provide management 

assistance through a reimbursable agreement.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Habitat 

Management

HM-1 Monitor construction projects and coordinate with Roads and 

Grounds if heavy equipment work is needed.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-7

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Habitat 

Management

HM-1 Survey areas on post where soil erosion and compaction might 

occur from construction to ensure that BMPs within the erosion 

and sedimentation plan for that construction are implemented 

and effective.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Habitat 

Management

HM-1 Implement recommendations from erosion survey. Reseed 

with predominantly native seed mixtures or restore as needed. 

Use native pollinator species to the greatest extent possible 

per the Presidential Memorandum that directs DOD to use 

pollinator-friendly native landscaping and minimize use of 

pesticides harmful to pollinators.

Sikes Act, FIFRA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2c 2018-2022

Habitat 

Management

HM-1 Work with project proponents to identify potential erosion sites. 

Identify additional sites for land rehabilitation planning.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Habitat 

Management

HM-1 Require all earth-moving activities (including contractor 

operations) to comply with the erosion and sedimentation plan 

for that construction project.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Exotic and Invasive 

Species 

Management

INV-1 Focus on the species and communities desired in place of the 

“weed” species, rather than on simply eliminating undesirable 

species. The species and communities desired will depend 

upon the management goals for a specific area. Use native 

pollinator species to the greatest extent possible per the 

Presidential Memorandum that directs DOD to use pollinatorfriendly native landscaping and minimize use of pesticides 

harmful to pollinators.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

FIFRA, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Exotic and Invasive 

Species 

Management

INV-1 Establish BMPs such as seed testing with the Rules for 

Testing Seed, published by the Association of Official Seed 

Analysts during landscaping projects to prevent new species 

from becoming established.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2c 2018-2022

Exotic and Invasive 

Species 

Management

INV-1 Include language in contracts with the construction companies 

to prevent the spread of invasive plant species on the 

installation.

Sikes Act, FIFRA, EO 

13112, DODI 4715.03, 

AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

C-8 | May 2018

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-1 Ensure compliance with environmental legislation, regulations, 

and guidelines.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, DODI 

4150.7, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-1 Direct installation staff to cease feeding feral cats and educate 

them on the potential impacts to migratory bird populations. 

Coordinate with local animal control offices to remove feral 

cats from the installation.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, DODI 

4150.7, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-1 Implement pest management controls from the IPMP and 

other pest-related guidance and plans.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, DODI 

4150.7, AR 200-1

2a 2018-2022

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-1 Update the existing IPMP to ensure that the plan reflects 

changes in populations and current management issues.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, DODI 

4150.7, AR 200-1

2a 2020

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-2 During grounds maintenance activities, identify areas where 

invasive species occur and develop specific management 

actions to target the populations of these species.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2c 2018-2022

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-2 Use integrated pest management methods that include nonchemical control to reduce the amount of herbicide applied on 

the installation in accordance with the DoD Pest Management 

Measures of Merit and the Presidential Memorandum, 

Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey 

Bees and Other Pollinators (June 2014).

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, DODI 

4150.07, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-2 For landscaping, use plants that are native to the local region 

as much as possible, or those that are not known to be 

invasive. Use native pollinator species to the greatest extent 

possible per the Presidential Memorandum that directs DOD to 

use pollinator-friendly native landscaping and minimize use of 

pesticides harmful to pollinators.

Sikes Act, FIFRA, EO 

13112, DODI 4715.03, 

AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Grounds 

Maintenance

GM-2 If necessary, coordinate with state and local regulators to 

obtain appropriate permits for nonnative and nuisance plant 

species eradication in wetland areas.

Sikes Act, EO 13112, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2c 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-9

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Agricultural 

Outleasing

AG-1 Provide lessees with a copy of the INRMP and conduct 

periodic checks of the lease activity to ensure compliance with 

the INRMP.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Agricultural 

Outleasing

AG-1 Collect, review, and submit pesticide/herbicide application data 

from the lessee as required by the IPMP and Army regulations.

Sikes Act, FIFRA, 

DODI 4715.03, AR 

200-1

2a 2018-2022

Outdoor 

Recreation

OR-1 Create a public access protocol, if appropriate. Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018

Environmental 

Awareness, 

Education and 

Outreach

EDU-1 Improve the general natural resources program knowledge of 

all persons associated with Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin, particularly those who come into regular contact with 

interested persons.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Environmental 

Awareness, 

Education and 

Outreach

EDU-1 Use newspapers, the Web site, and special displays to inform 

the surrounding community of matters important to Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin natural resources program.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Environmental 

Awareness, 

Education and 

Outreach

EDU-1 Participate in Earth Day and other organized events, as 

appropriate, and evaluate other special events for their 

usefulness in promoting a stewardship image and 

conservation commitment.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Environmental 

Awareness, 

Education and 

Outreach

EDU-1 Engage local community groups and educate the local 

community, installation personnel, and tenants about the 

installation natural resources program.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Environmental 

Awareness, 

Education and 

Outreach

EDU-2 Encourage natural resources staff to join professional societies 

and their state/regional chapters and to be active in them.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

C-10 | May 2018

INRMP Subject 

Area

Responsible 

Party

INRMP 

Issue 

Number

Project Description

Federal, State, DoD 

or DA Law, Policy or 

Guidance1

DoD 

Class2 Fiscal Year

Environmental 

Awareness, 

Education and 

Outreach

EDU-2 Ensure that designated natural resources personnel obtain the 

one-time or occasional refresher training needed to fulfill job 

requirements (e.g., GIS user training, NEPA training, 

endangered species documentation/consultation training).

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Environmental 

Awareness, 

Education and 

Outreach

EDU-2 Evaluate other conferences/workshops, such as the National 

Military Fish and Wildlife Association annual workshop, for 

their usefulness as training tools and send personnel to those 

most justified, based on current training needs and those most 

related to Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin activities.

Sikes Act, DODI 

4715.03, AR 200-1

2c 2018-2022

Note:

1. This is not a comprehensive list of applicable regulation; other regulations, policy, or guidance may apply. Please review Appendix B for a comprehensive list of laws, policies or

guidance for management of natural resources. 

2. See Table 8 for a description of DoD funding classes. 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | C-11

This page intentionally left blank.

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-1

D

Documentation and 

Correspondence

Appendix D
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-2 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-3
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-4 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-5
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-6 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-7
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-8 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-9

CDFW Comment Response Matrix

Draft Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessme

for DLA Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, CA

#

Location

Comment Reviewer 

Page Line Section

1 Signature 

Page

the signatory for CDFW should be James Starr, Environmental 

Program Manager MF Inserted 

2 1.5.4.1 subsection for CDFW - last sentence should read that the CDFW office 

with responsibility is the "Bay Delta Region in Napa, California". MF replaced

3 46 5.2.4

approximately 5

support burrowing owls to prevent invasive plants from growing over 

Recommend that regular mowing or grazing be included in areas that 

-inches in height.

MF

Inserted 

period (1 

approxim

invasive 

areas tha
Page 2 of 4

CDFW Comment Response Matrix

Draft Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment

for DLA Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, CA

#

Location

Comment Reviewer HDR Response Page Line Section

4 46 5.2.4

Recommend if possible that lands surrounding the area where 

burrowing owls occur be set aside for conservation/resource 

management purposes, if not then would recommend that some of the 

agricultural lands be set aside and managed for this purpose in a 

manner compatible with mission activities. This statement was 

followed up with a phone conservation between MF and Kate 

Crosthwaite, HDR in order to clarify intent of the comment (30 March 

2018).

MF

Added as Actions 7, 8, and 9: 

7. Conduct a biological feasibility study to 

explore the potential for setting aside a 

portion of the agricultural annex for 

burrowing owl habitat. This study should 

include an assessment of current and past 

inhabited areas, short and long-term 

recommendations for managing or restoring 

those areas to suitable habitat conditions, and 

an analysis of the appropriate size and 

configuration of land that would be 

biologically meaningful for burrowing owl 

conservation.

8. Conduct a logistical and financial 

feasibility study to determine the potential for 

setting aside a portion of the agricultural 

annex for burrowing owl habitat conservation 

(e.g., agricultural lease renewal schedules, 

potential mission impacts, integration with 

the Installation Master Plan).

9. Ensure collaboration with CDFW and 

USFWS regarding burrowing owl habitat 

management planning during the annual 

INRMP review.
Page 3 of 4

CDFW Comment Response Matrix

Draft Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment

for DLA Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, CA

#

Location

Comment Reviewer HDR Response Page Line Section

5 46 5.2.4

Recommend including management that supports ground squirrels and 

their burrows in areas that have been identified where there would be 

no conflict with mission activities and supporting burrowing owls.

MF

Added as Action 10: In order to facilitate 

habitat for burrowing owls, proactively 

manage for the presence of ground squirrels 

when not in conflict with the military 

mission.

6 46 5.2.4

Action 5 - Broadcast baiting should not be allowed due to poisoning of 

non-target wildlife throughout the site. Recommend bait stations or 

mechanical methods.

MF

Added to Action 5 (now Action 6): Avoid 

fumigation of any animal burrows. Do not 

use treated bait or other means of poisoning 

nuisance animals in areas where burrowing 

owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., 

sites observed with nesting owls, foraging 

habitat). Restrict the use of treated grain to 

poison mammals in areas outside of 

burrowing owl habitat, only apply during the 

month of January, and use only when 

integrated pest management options are not 

effective (e.g., mechanical methods). 

Broadcast baiting is not permitted; if use of 

treated grain is necessary, use bait stations 

and only place stations outside of burrowing 

owl habitat.

7 50 5.6

Recommend including as a management objective increasing 

occurrence of native flowering plants during all seasons to support 

declining populations of pollinator species

MF

Added to Action 3: Implement 

recommendations from erosion survey. 

Reseed with predominantly native seed. Use 

native pollinator species to the greatest extent 

possible per the Presidential Memorandum 

that directs DOD to use pollinator-friendly 

native landscaping and minimize use of 

pesticides harmful to pollinators.
Page 4 of 4

CDFW Comment Response Matrix

Draft Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment

for DLA Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, CA

#

Location

Comment Reviewer HDR Response Page Line Section

Reviewer: MF, Melissa Farinha, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), Bay Delta Region, Habitat Conservation Unit, 7329 Silverado Trail, Napa, CA 

94558; 707-944-5579; melissa.farinha@wildlife.ca.gov, comments provided 23 January 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-10 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-12 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-13
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-14 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-15
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-16 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-17
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-18 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-19
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-20 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-21
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-22 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-23
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-24 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-25
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-26 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-27
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-28 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-29
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-30 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-31
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-32 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-33
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

D-34 | May 2018
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | D-35

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | E-1

E

Wildlife and Plant 

Species Lists

Appendix E
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

E-2 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | E-3

Table E-1. Wildlife Species Observed on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Common Name Scientific Name Federal/State Status

Reptiles and Amphibians

California toad Anaxyrus boreas halophilus

Pacific gophersnake Pitouphis catenifer

Sierran treefrog Pseudacris sierra

Northwestern fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis

Birds

American avocet Recurvirostra americana MBTA

American coot Fulica americana MBTA

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis MBTA

American kestrel Falco sparverius MBTA

American robin Turdus migratorius MBTA

Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna MBTA

Audubon’s warbler Dendroica coronata auduboni MBTA

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica MBTA

Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans MBTA

Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus MBTA

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus MBTA; PIF

California gull Larus californicus MBTA

California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia MBTA; PIF

Canada goose Branta canadensis MBTA

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota MBTA

Common raven Corvus corax MBTA

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens MBTA

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

Golden-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla MBTA

Great egret Ardea alba MBTA

Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus MBTA

Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus MBTA

Green heron Butorides virescens MBTA

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus MBTA

House sparrow Passer domesticus
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

E-4 | May 2018

Common Name Scientific Name Federal/State Status

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus MBTA

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus CDFW SSC, MBTA; PIF

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos MBTA

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura MBTA

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos MBTA

Pacific-slope flycatcher Empidonax difficilis MBTA

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus MBTA

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis MBTA

Rock pigeon Columbia livia

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia MBTA

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni ST, MBTA

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis MBTA

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta MBTA

Western scrub jay Aphelocoma californica MBTA

White crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys MBTA

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi MBTA

Yellow-throated warbler Setophaga dominica MBTA

Mammals

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii

Feral cat Felis catus

Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis

Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis

Source: DLA 2013b, DLA 1999

ST – State Threatened

CDFW SSC – California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern

MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act

PIF – Parterners in Flight Species of Continental Concern
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | E-5

Table E-2. Plant Species Observed on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Common Name Scientific Name Family Native

Conifers

Deodar cedar (ornamental) Cedrus deodara (Roxb.) G. Don f. Pinaceae N

Atlas cedar (ornamental) Cedrus libani A. Rich. [excluded] Pinaceae N

Italian cypress (ornamental) Cupressus sempervirens L. Cupressaceae N

Coulter’s pine (ornamental) Pinus coulteri D. Don Pinaceae Y

Pine (ornamental) Pinus L. spp. Pinaceae N

Redwood (ornamental) Sequoia sempervirens (Lamb. ex D. Don) Endl. Cupressaceae Y

Monocots

Giant reed Arundo donax L. Poaceae N*

Slender oat Avena barbata Pott ex Link Poaceae N*

Wild oat Avena fatua L. Poaceae N*

Rescue grass Bromus catharticus Vahl Poaceae N

Ripgut brome Bromus diandrus Roth Poaceae N*

Soft brome Bromus hordeaceus L. Poaceae N*

Compact brome Bromus madritensis L. Poaceae N

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Poaceae N*

Yellow nutsedge Cyperus esculentus L. Cyperaceae Y

Flatsedge Cyperus L. sp. Cyperaceae

Saltgrass Distichlis spicata (L.) Greene Poaceae Y

Barnyardgrass Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv. Poaceae N

Barbgrass Hainardia cylindrica (Willd.) Greuter Poaceae N

Hare barley Hordeum murinum L. ssp. leporinum (Link) 

Arcang.

Poaceae N*

Italian ryegrass Lolium perenne L. ssp. Multiflorum

(Lam.) Husnot

Poaceae N*

Dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum Poir. Poaceae N

Annual bluegrass Poa annua L. Poaceae N

Bulbous bluegrass Poa bulbosa L. Poaceae N

Ditch rabbitsfoot grass Polypogon interruptus Kunth Poaceae N
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

E-6 | May 2018

Common Name Scientific Name Family Native

Annual rabbitsfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis (L.) Desf. Poaceae N*

Yellow foxtail Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. Poaceae N

Annual fescue Vulpia myuros (L.) C.C. Gmel. Poaceae N

Washington fan palm Washingtonia robusta H. Wendl. Arecaceae N*

Corn Zea mays L. ssp. mays Poaceae N

Eudicots

Tree of heaven Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle Simaroubaceae N*

Alder (ornamental) Alnus Mill. sp. Betulaceae N

Red amaranth Amaranthus cruentus L. Amaranthaceae N

Redroot amaranth Amaranthus retroflexus L. Amaranthaceae N

Valley redstem Ammannia coccinea Rottb. Lythraceae Y

Common fiddleneck Amsinckia menziesii (Lehm.) A. Nelson & J.F. 

Macbr. var. intermedia (Fisch. & C.A. Mey.) 

Ganders

Boraginaceae Y

Scarlet pimpernel Anagallis arvensis L. Primulaceae N

Madrone (ornamental) Arbutus L. sp. Ericaceae N

Mexican whorled milkweed Asclepias fascicularis Decne. Asclepiadaceae Y

Australian saltbush Atriplex semibaccata R. Br. Chenopodiaceae N*

Coyotebrush Baccharis pilularis DC. Asteraceae Y

Mulefat Baccharis salicifolia (Ruiz & Pav.) Pers. Asteraceae Y

Burningbush Bassia scoparia (L.) A.J. Scott Chenopodiaceae N

Field mustard Brassica rapa L. Brassicaceae N*

Shepherd’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. Brassicaceae N

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis L. Asteraceae N*

Common tarweed Centromadia pungens (Hook. & Arn.) Greene Asteraceae Y

Sticky chickweed Cerastium glomeratum Thuill. Caryophyllaceae N

Sandmat Chamaesyce Gray sp. Euphorbiaceae

Spotted sandmat Chamaesyce maculata (L.) Small Euphorbiaceae N

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Asteraceae N*
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | E-7

Common Name Scientific Name Family Native

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Asteraceae N*

Citrus Citrus L. sp. Rutaceae N

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis L. Convolvulaceae N

Asthmaweed Conyza bonariensis (L.) Cronquist Asteraceae N

Canadian horseweed Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist Asteraceae Y

Water pygmyweed Crassula aquatic (L.) Schoenl. Crassulaceae Y

Western tansymustard Descurainia pinnata (Walter) Britton Brassicaceae Y

Asian ponysfoot Dichondra micrantha Urb Convolvulaceae N

Longbeak stork's bill Erodium botrys (Cav.) Bertol. Geraniaceae N

Redstem stork's bill Erodium cicutarium (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton Geraniaceae N*

Musky stork's bill Erodium moschatum (L.) L'Hér. ex Aiton Geraniaceae N

California poppy Eschscholzia californica Cham. Papaveraceae Y

Tasmanian bluegum 

(ornamental)

Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Myrtaceae N*

Gum (ornamental) Eucalyptus L'Hér. ssp. Myrtaceae N

Ash (ornamental) Fraxinus L. sp. Oleaceae N

Western marsh cudweed Gnaphalium palustre Nutt. Asteraceae Y

Hairy gumweed Grindelia hirsutula Hook. & Arn. Asteraceae Y

Common sunflower Helianthus annuus L. Asteraceae Y

Salt heliotrope Heliotropium curassavicum L. Boraginaceae Y

Telegraphweed Heterotheca grandiflora Nutt. Asteraceae Y

Shortpod mustard Hirschfeldia incana (L.) Lagr.-Foss. Brassicaceae N*

Smooth cat's ear Hypochaeris glabra L. Asteraceae N

Walnut Juglans L. sp. Juglandaceae

Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola L. Asteraceae N

Crepemyrtle (ornamental) Lagerstroemia L. (indica x fauriei) Lythraceae N

Least duckweed Lemna minuta Kunth Lemnaceae Y

Broadleaved pepperweed Lepidium latifolium L. Brassicaceae N*

Shining pepperweed Lepidium nitidum Nutt. Brassicaceae Y
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

E-8 | May 2018

Common Name Scientific Name Family Native

Bird's-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus L. Fabaceae N

Hollowleaf annual lupine Lupinus succulentus Douglas ex K. Koch Fabaceae Y

Blue potatobush (ornamental) Lycianthes rantonnetii (Carrière) Bitter Solanaceae N

Apple (ornamental) Malus Mill. sp. Rosaceae N

Cheeseweed mallow Malva parviflora L. Malvaceae N

Disc mayweed 

(pineappleweed)

Matricaria discoidea DC. Asteraceae N

Burclover Medicago polymorpha L. Fabaceae N*

Oleander (ornamental) Nerium oleander L. Apocynaceae N

Olive (ornamental) Olea europaea L. Oleaceae N*

Creeping woodsorrel Oxalis corniculata L. Oxalidaceae N

Fraser’s photinia (ornamental) Photinia ×fraseri Dress Rosaceae N

Bristly oxtongue Picris echioides L. Asteraceae N*

Narrowleaf plantain Plantago lanceolata L. Plantaginaceae N*

Common plantain Plantago major L. Plantaginaceae N

California sycamore 

(ornamental)

Platanus racemosa Nutt. Plantaginaceae Y

Curlytop knotweed Polygonum lapathifolium L. Polygonaceae Y

White poplar (ornamental) Populus alba L. Salicaceae N

Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii S. Watson ssp. fremontii Salicaceae Y

Little hogweed Portulaca oleracea L. Portulacaceae N

Cherry plum (ornamental) Prunus cerasifera Ehrh. Rosaceae N*

Jersey cudweed Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum (L.) Hilliard & 

B.L. Burtt

Asteraceae N

Oak (ornamental) Quercus L. spp. Fagaceae

Hawthorn Rhaphiolepis Lindl., nom. cons. sp. Rosaceae N

Black locust (ornamental) Robinia pseudoacacia L. Fabaceae N*

Rose (ornamental) Rosa L. sp. Rosaceae N

Curly dock Rumex crispus L. Polygonaceae N*

Narrowleaf willow Salix exigua Nutt. Salicaceae Y
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | E-9

Common Name Scientific Name Family Native

Weeping willow (ornamental) Salix L. sp. (Salix ×sepulcralis

Simonkai [alba × ?pendulina])

Salicaceae N

Pacific willow Salix lucida Muhl. ssp. lasiandra (Benth.) A.E. 

Murray

Salicaceae Y

Prickly Russian thistle Salsola tragus L. Chenopodiaceae N*

Peruvian peppertree 

(ornamental)

Schinus molle L. Anacardiaceae N*

Old-man-in-the-Spring Senecio vulgaris L. Asteraceae N

Blessed milkthistle Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. Asteraceae N*

Tall tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum L. Brassicaceae N

London rocket Sisymbrium irio L. Brassicaceae N*

Hedgemustard Sisymbrium officinale (L.) Scop. Brassicaceae N

Carolina horsenettle Solanum carolinense L. Solanaceae N

Greenspot nightshade Solanum douglasii Dunal Solanaceae Y

Spiny sowthistle Sonchus asper (L.) Hill Asteraceae N

Common chickweed Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Caryophyllaceae N

Rod wirelettuce Stephanomeria virgata Benth. Asteraceae Y

Common dandelion Taraxacum officinale F.H. Wigg. Asteraceae N

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris L. Zygophyllaceae N

Strawberry clover Trifolium fragiferum L. Fabaceae N

Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia L. Typhaceae Y

Stinging nettle Urtica dioica L. Urticaceae Y

Water speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica L. Scrophulariaceae N

Rough cocklebur Xanthium strumarium L. Asteraceae Y

Source: DLA 2013b, DLA 1999

* Cal-IPC recognized noxious weeds
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

E-10 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | i

F

Environmental 

Assessment

Appendix F
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

ii | May 2018

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 

FOR IMPLEMENTING AN 

INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA

Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations 

Parts 1500–1508) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code § 4321 et seq.), the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has 

conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the potential effects associated with implementing 

an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) at the Defense Distribution Depot San 

Joaquin, California. The INRMP has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Sikes 

Act as amended (16 United States Code § 670a et seq.); DLA Instruction 4108, Natural and Cultural 

Resources Conservation Program; and Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and 

Enhancement. The INRMP and EA are herewith incorporated by reference into this Finding of No 

Significant Impact.

Proposed Action. DLA proposes to implement this INRMP, which supports the management of 

natural resources as described by the INRMP itself. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to carry 

out the set of resource-specific management measures developed in the INRMP, which would 

enable Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin to manage the use and condition of natural 

resources on the aforementioned sites primarily to protect the natural setting for mission purposes. 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would support DLA’s continuing need to ensure the safety 

and efficiency of the mission while practicing sound resources stewardship and complying with 

environmental policies and regulations.

The Proposed Action supports an ecosystem approach and includes natural resources management 

measures to be undertaken on Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, California. The Proposed 

Action focuses on a 5-year planning period, which is consistent with the timeframe for the 

management measures described in the INRMP. This planning period will become effective upon 

the date of the last signatory and shall continue in full force for a period of 5 years. Additional 

environmental analyses might be required as new management measures are developed over the 

long term (i.e., beyond 5 years). The INRMP will be revised and updated at the end of the 5-year 

planning period.

Alternatives. The development of proposed management measures for the INRMP included a 

screening analysis of resource-specific alternatives. The screening analysis involved the use of 

accepted criteria, standards, and guidelines, when available; and best professional judgment to 

identify management practices for achieving natural resources management objectives on the 

installation. The outcome of the screening analysis led to the development of the Proposed Action 

as described above. Consistent with the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act, this 

screening process focused on identifying a range of reasonable resource-specific management 

alternatives and developing a plan that could be implemented, as a whole, in the foreseeable future. 

Management alternatives deemed to be infeasible were not analyzed further. As a result of the 

screening process, the EA, made an integral part of the INRMP, formally addresses two alternatives: 

the Proposed Action (i.e., implementation of the INRMP) and the No Action Alternative.

No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed management measures set 

forth in the INRMP would not be implemented. Current management measures for natural 

resources would remain in effect and existing (i.e., baseline) conditions would continue. The No 

Action Alternative serves as a benchmark against which the Proposed Action can be evaluated. 

Inclusion of a No Action Alternative is prescribed by Council on Environmental Quality regulations; 

therefore, the No Action Alternative has been analyzed in the EA, which is included as a component 

of this INRMP.
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | iii

Factors Considered in Determining that No Environmental Impact Statement is Required. The 

EA examines potential effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on resources 

and areas of environmental concern that could be affected by implementing the INRMP. These 

include environmental setting; climate; air quality; noise; topography; geology; soils; water 

resources; wetlands; aquatic habitat; riparian habitat; terrestrial ecosystems; fauna; endangered, 

threatened, and rare species; land use; facilities; hazardous and toxic materials; socioeconomic 

resources; and environmental justice. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in shortand long-term beneficial effects on identified resources and areas of environmental concern.

Findings. Based on the results of the EA, it is determined that implementation of the Proposed 

Action would have no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on the quality of the natural or 

human environment. Implementation of the INRMP would be expected to improve existing 

conditions at Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin as shown by the potential for beneficial 

effects. The Proposed Action would enable DLA, over time, to achieve its goal of maintaining 

ecosystem viability and ensuring sustainability of the mission. Because there would be no significant 

environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action, an Environmental 

Impact Statement is not required and will not be prepared.

Jonathan Mathews

DLA Installation Operations Site Director

Date
Environmental Assessment

Defense Distribution Depot

iv | May 2018

Environmental Assessment

Defense Distribution Depot

San Joaquin, California

Final

May 2018
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | v
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

vi | May 2018

Environmental Assessment

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

Prepared for:

Defense Logistics Agency

Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin

25600 Chrisman Road

Tracy, CA 95304

Prepared by:

2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 300

Folsom, CA 95630

Contract No. W91278-15-D-0018

Task Order 0002

May 2018
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | vii

Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | i

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADDRESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN AT DEFENSE 

DISTRIBUTION DEPOT, SAN JOAQUIN, CALIFORNIA 

Responsible Agency: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

Affected Location: Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (Depot)

Report Designation: Environmental Assessment

Abstract: DLA proposes to implement the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 

(INRMP) for the Depot. The INRMP was prepared to assist the Installation Support Staff Director 

with the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources consistent with the military mission of 

the Depot for the next 5 years after the approval (Fiscal Years 2018–2022). The INRMP is based on 

an integrated approach to ecosystem management and addresses wildlife and vegetation goals and 

objectives, as well as the water and soil resources in the context of the military mission of the Depot.

Implementing the INRMP would result in a comprehensive natural resources management strategy 

for the Depot that represents compliance, restoration, prevention, and conservation; initiates a 

cohesive management approach for natural resources on the Depot; and meets legal and policy 

requirements consistent with national natural resources management philosophies.

Under the No Action Alternative, DLA would not implement the INRMP. In general, implementation 

of the No Action Alternative would require that DLA continue to not implement specific measures to 

protect and enhance the natural resources on the Depot which could impede the ability of the 

installation to meet its current and future mission requirements. The No Action Alternative would not 

meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

ii | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | iii

Contents

1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action.............................................................................F-1

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................F-1

1.2 Background.......................................................................................................................F-1

1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ...................................................................F-1

1.4 Scope of Analysis..............................................................................................................F-2

1.5 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance Requirements...............................................F-2

1.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ............................................................F-2

1.5.2 Applicable Environmental and Regulatory Compliance..........................................F-3

1.6 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ....................................................................F-3

2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives....................................................................F-5

2.1 Proposed Action................................................................................................................F-5

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ..........................................F-7

2.3 No Action Alternative.........................................................................................................F-7

3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences............................................................F-9

3.1 Land Use.........................................................................................................................F-10

3.1.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-10

3.1.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-11

3.2 Geology...........................................................................................................................F-11

3.2.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-11

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-11

3.3 Topography .....................................................................................................................F-12

3.3.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-12

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-12

3.4 Soils................................................................................................................................F-12

3.4.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-12

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-12

3.5 Water Resources.............................................................................................................F-13

3.5.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-13

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-13

3.6 Floodplains......................................................................................................................F-14

3.6.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-14

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-14

3.7 Aquatic and Riparian Habitat ...........................................................................................F-14

3.7.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-14

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-14

3.8 Vegetation.......................................................................................................................F-15

3.8.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-15

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-15

3.9 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................F-15

3.9.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-15
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

iv | May 2018

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-16

3.10 Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species ....................................................................F-16

3.10.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................................F-16

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................F-16

4 Cumulative and Other Effects....................................................................................................F-19

4.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...........................................................................................F-20

4.2 Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives with the Objectives of Federal, 

Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls..................................F-20

4.3 Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and Maintenance 

and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity....................................................................F-20

4.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..................................................F-20

4.5 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and Conservation Potential......................F-21

5 Conclusion................................................................................................................................F-23

6 References ...............................................................................................................................F-25

Tables

Table 1. Summary of Depot INRMP Goals............................................................................................F-5

Table 2. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences.............................................................F-19
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | v

List of Acronyms

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

DLAR DLA Environmental Protection Regulation

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOA Notice of Availability

SSC state species of concern

USC United States Code
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

vi | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-1

8 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed 

Action

8.1 Introduction

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is proposing to implement an Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan (INRMP) for Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin (the Depot). The INRMP 

was prepared to assist the Installation Operations Site Director with the conservation and 

rehabilitation of natural resources consistent with the military mission of the Depot for the next 5

years after the approval (Fiscal Years [FY] 2018–2022). The INRMP is consistent with the Sikes Act 

Improvement Act of 1997, as amended through 2010 (16 United States Code [USC] 670a et seq.), 

which requires the preparation, implementation, update, and review of an INRMP for each military 

installation in the United States and its territories with significant natural resources. Defense 

Logistics Agency Instruction 4108, Natural and Cultural Resources Conservation Program defines 

the INRMP as a required tool used to implement the natural resources management program (DLA 

2009).

This Environmental Assessment (EA) will evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated 

with implementing the INRMP and the No Action Alternative and has been prepared in accordance 

with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500–1508);

Defense Logistics Agency Regulation (DLAR) 1000.22, Environmental Considerations in Defense 

Logistics Agency Actions; and other applicable DLA issuances (e.g., regulations, directives, 

memorandums, instructions). Because many of the required components are provided in the 

INRMP, they are incorporated into this EA by reference in accordance with CEQs guidance, 

Improving the Process for Preparing Efficient and Timely Environmental Reviews Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

8.2 Background

Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin is a DLA installation in Tracy, California, approximately 20 

miles south of Stockton. It consists of approximately 908 acres and is comprised of 448 acres of 

developed area which is directly south of the Depot Annex which comprises 460 acres of agricultural 

land. The primary mission of the Depot is storage, shipping, packaging, and maintenance of general 

supplies in support of the United States Armed Forces defense mission (DLA 2013a). 

A description of the location, facilities, history, and mission of the Depot can be found in Section 2 of 

the INRMP.

8.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action consists of the implementation of the natural resources management 

measures outlined in the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin INRMP dated May 2018 (DLA 

2018). Implementation of the Proposed Action would support the Depot’s need to fulfill mission 

requirements while practicing sound natural resources stewardship on the installation and complying 

with environmental policies and regulations.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-2 | May 2018

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to direct and support the installation with the conservation 

and rehabilitation of natural resources consistent with the military mission of the Depot during FY 

2018-2022. The INRMP is based on an integrated approach to ecosystem management and 

addresses wildlife and vegetation goals and objectives, as well as the water and soil resources in the 

context of the military mission of the Depot.

The need for the Proposed Action is to implement the natural resources management actions 

identified in the INRMP. Implementation of the INRMP is needed for compliance with environmental 

laws and regulations; implementation of guidelines and policies for natural resources management; 

application of best available information and adaptive management; and sustainability of the military 

mission. 

8.4 Scope of Analysis

The scope of the EA includes an evaluation of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. 

Under the No Action Alternative, projects in the INRMP would not be implemented. In accordance 

with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 1502.14), the No Action Alternative has been

analyzed to provide a baseline against which the environmental impacts of implementing the range 

of alternatives addressed can be compared. This EA examines the potential effects of the Proposed 

Action and No Action Alternative on six resource areas: land use; air quality and climate; geology, 

topography, and soils; water resources; wildlife and endangered threatened and rare species. These 

were identified as being potentially affected by the Proposed Action.

8.5 Summary of Key Environmental Compliance 

Requirements

8.5.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

The NEPA, 42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et seq., was signed into law on January 1, 1970. The 

Act establishes a national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and 

enhancement of the environment and provides a process for implementing these goals within the 

federal agencies. The Act also establishes the CEQ to coordinate federal environmental efforts. The 

process for implementing NEPA is outlined in 40 CFR §§ 1500–1508. The CEQ regulations specify 

that an EA serves to provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As part of the EA 

process, DLA will determine whether the Proposed Action would have the potential to result in 

significant impacts. If such impacts are predicted, then DLA would decide whether to mitigate 

impacts below the level of significance, undertake the preparation of an EIS, or select the No Action 

Alternative. DLA’s implementing regulation for NEPA is DLAR 1000.22 (DLA 2011).

According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated “with other planning 

and environmental review procedures required by law or by agency so that all such procedures run 

concurrently rather than consecutively.” The adoption of an INRMP can be considered a major 

federal action as defined by Section 1508.18 of the CEQ regulations. As such, the CEQ Regulations 

(40 CFR §§ 1500–1508) for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (42 USC § 4321 et 

seq.) require the preparation of an EA or EIS for the implementation of an INRMP, whichever is 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-3

appropriate. For the purposes of implementing the Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin INRMP, 

an EA has been chosen as the appropriate level of NEPA analysis. 

8.5.2 Applicable Environmental and Regulatory Compliance

The NEPA process does not replace procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental 

statutes and regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which enables 

the decision maker to have a comprehensive view of major environmental issues and requirements 

associated with the Proposed Action. 

The Depot is required by federal law (e.g., Sikes Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water 

Act) and Department of Defense and DLA regulations and instructions to conserve and enhance 

native ecosystems and environments, including sensitive species, and to maximize public outdoor 

recreational opportunities within constraints of the military mission. The Sikes Act mandates not only 

the preparation of an INRMP but also the implementation of the management activities contained in 

the plan. According to the Sikes Act, the conservation program must be consistent with the missionessential use of the installation and its lands and cause no net loss of military land use. The Depot 

INRMP has been prepared to meet natural resources regulatory requirements while ensuring no net 

loss in the capability of military lands to support the military mission of the Depot.

8.6 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement

DLAR 1000.22 requires DLA to facilitate coordination with federal, state, and local officials and

organizations that could be affected by a proposed action (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]). DLA invites all agencies and the public with an 

interest in the Proposed Action and alternatives to participate in this NEPA process, which will 

provide DLA with the opportunity to coordinate with and consider the views of other agencies and 

individuals. A premise of NEPA is that the quality of federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents 

provide information to the public and involve the public in the planning process.

Section 1.4 of the INRMP describes the required coordination process for the preparation of the 

INRMP. A Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing the availability of the Revised Draft INRMP and 

Draft EA was published in a local newspaper on 6 April 2018 to initiate a 30-day public review 

period. The NOA solicited comments on the Draft EA and involved the public in the decision-making 

process. The Revised Draft INRMP and Draft EA were made available at the Stockton-San Joaquin 

County Public Library of Tracy. A NOA for the Final INRMP and Final EA will also be published in 

the Tracy Press and Vida en el Valle (local newspapers) upon signature of the FONSI.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-4 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-5

9 Description of the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives

9.1 Proposed Action

The Depot proposes to implement an INRMP, which supports the management of natural resources 

as described by the plan itself. The Proposed Action supports an ecosystem approach and includes 

natural resources management measures to be undertaken at the Depot. The Proposed Action 

focuses on a 5-year planning period, which is consistent with the timeframe for the management 

measures described in the INRMP. This planning period would begin in FY 2018 and end in FY

2022. Additional environmental analysis could be required as new management measures are 

developed over the long-term (i.e., beyond 5 years). The natural resources management measures 

provided in the INRMP must be consistent with the following criteria, in order to meet the goals and 

objectives:

• Be based on the principles of ecosystem management.

• Provide for sustainable multipurpose use of natural resources.

• Maintain compliance with relevant environmental regulations.

• Provide for public access for use of natural resources subject to safety and military 

security considerations.

• Establish specific natural resources management objectives and timeframes for the 

Proposed Action.

• Prevent loss in the capability of military lands to support the military mission of the 

installation.

Management objectives established in the INRMP were developed through a thorough evaluation of 

the natural resources present at the Depot. This section presents the preferred management 

alternatives based on the professional opinions of the Depot, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

CDFW. Through these evaluations, a set of natural resources planning and management goals have 

been established that represent the most current theories on adaptive ecosystem-based planning as 

summarized in Table 1. Selection of these management goals has been tempered with the fact that 

the operational mission at the Depot takes primacy over natural resources management.

Table 9. Summary of Depot INRMP Goals

Ecosystem Management Goals

• Manage The Depot based on a regional ecosystem approach that conserves biodiversity.

• Identify natural resources and operational actions that compromise the function and composition of 

ecosystems and develop remedies through adaptive management.

• Implement management strategies with consideration of ecological units and timeframes.

• Support sustainable, multiple-use human activities.

• Apply ecosystem-based management through implementation of the INRMP and other installation plans and 

programs.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-6 | May 2018

Table 9. Summary of Depot INRMP Goals

Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Goals

• Manage The Depot on a regional ecosystem-based approach that manages sensitive species and their 

associated ecosystems while protecting the operational functionality of the military missions.

• Ensure that The Depot remains in compliance with the ESA and appropriate state regulations.

• Promote natural resources and ecosystem management in the local region that benefits the functionality of the 

ecosystems.

• Protect sensitive wildlife habitats on The Depot.

Wetlands and Waters of the United States Goals

• Remain in compliance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and State of California wetlands regulations.

• Minimize the operational impact of The Depot missions on wetland vegetation in the retention pond.

Watershed Management Goals

• Reduce/control nutrient and sediment inputs into the watershed that degrade water quality.

• Minimize nonpoint source pollution of surface water in the watershed through the implementation of best 

management practices.

• Maintain vegetation buffers on waterways/riparian corridors.

Fish and Wildlife Management Goals

• Manage based on an ecosystem management approach, rather than a single-species paradigm.

• Employ a systematic approach to managing wildlife resources, using a process that includes inventory, 

monitoring, modeling, management, assessment, and evaluation.

• Minimize wildlife-related health risks, safety risks, and environmental damage.

• Maintain diversity of wildlife in areas on the installation where there will be no conflict with the mission.

• Maintain and involve partnerships with agencies and groups involved in wildlife management.

Habitat Management Goals

• Enhance habitat by providing suitable food and cover for native species while protecting the operational 

functionality of The Depot’s missions.

• Protect native habitat diversity.

• Enhance habitat for native species by removing invasive vegetation.

Exotic and Invasive Species Management Goals

• Ensure compliance with environmental legislation, regulations, and guidelines.

• Control pests and invasive species.

Grounds Maintenance Goals

• Lessen or avoid adverse effects from project activities on the overall ecosystem and its sensitive resources.

• Make maximum use of regional, native plant species and avoid introduction of invasive, exotic species in 

revegetation and landscaping activities.

• Reduce maintenance inputs in terms of energy, water, manpower, and equipment.

Agricultural Outleasing Goals

• Balance production on agricultural lands with long-term health and functionality of the soils.

• Ensure outlease terms provide ecological benefits where possible and support installation natural resources 

program management.

Outdoor Recreation Goals

• Provide outdoor recreation experiences while sustaining ecosystem integrity.

• Ensure that outdoor recreation activities are not in conflict with mission priorities.

Environmental Awareness, Education, and Outreach Goals

• Provide education opportunities to military personnel.

• Promote environmental stewardship through training and awareness. 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-7

Table 9. Summary of Depot INRMP Goals

Surrounding Lands Goals

• Coordinate with surrounding landowners on ecosystem-based management of resources and encourage 

cooperative efforts on adjacent lands that are complementary to the INRMP.

• Minimize threats to The Depot assets and natural resources from off-site land use.

For each of the goals and resources areas listed above, specific concerns, objectives, and actions 

were developed to meet the overriding goals for natural resources managed on the Depot (see 

INRMP Section 5.1). A summary of the management actions is presented in Appendix C of the 

INRMP. Appendix C contains the projects proposed for the Depot and includes the relevant INRMP 

subject areas, a specific INRMP issue number, a project description, the corresponding law or 

regulation, Department of Defense Class, proposed fiscal year for implementing each 

recommendation, and estimated costs for completion.

The projects presented in Appendix C of the INRMP strive to enhance natural resources on the 

Depot, without impacting other installation plans and activities. Any future changes in mission, 

activity, or technology should be analyzed to assess their impact on natural resources. As new 

installation plans and DLA guidance and regulations are developed, they should be integrated with 

the drivers and management actions resulting from this INRMP.

9.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Analysis

Under NEPA, reasonable alternatives must be considered in the EA. Considering alternatives helps 

to avoid unnecessary impacts and allows an analysis of reasonable ways to achieve the proposed 

action and satisfy the stated purpose and need. A reasonable alternative must be capable of 

implementation and meet the selection standard. 

Implementation of the final approved INRMP is required per the statutory provisions of the Sikes Act 

(16 USC 670 et seq.) and DLAR 1000.22, Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics 

Agency Actions. The development of proposed management measures for the INRMP included 

screening analysis of resource-specific alternatives relative to the criteria provided in Section 2.1. As 

a result of this screening process, this EA addresses two alternatives: the Proposed Action 

(i.e., implementation of the INRMP) and the No Action Alternative. 

9.3 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed management measures set forth in the INRMP would 

not be implemented. Current management measures for natural resources would remain in effect 

and existing conditions would continue. This document refers to the continuation of existing 

(i.e., baseline) conditions of the affected environment, without implementation of the Proposed 

Action, as the No Action Alternative because this is the initial INRMP for the Depot. The No Action 

Alternative serves as a benchmark against which federal actions can be evaluated. Inclusion of a No 

Action Alternative is prescribed by CEQ regulations and, therefore, will be carried forward for further 

analysis.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-8 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-9

10 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

This section addresses the environmental resources and conditions most likely to be affected by the 

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative. It provides information to serve as a baseline from which 

to identify and evaluate environmental consequences likely to result from implementation of the 

Proposed Action and alternatives. The affected environment within the Depot and the surrounding 

area is described in detail in the INRMP, which is available for review. Therefore, that information, 

which can be used as a baseline for identifying potential impacts of the alternatives, is only 

mentioned briefly for each affected resource in this EA and is incorporated by reference. For more 

in-depth information for each resource listed in this section, see Section 4 of the INRMP.

All potentially relevant environmental resource areas were initially considered for analysis in this EA. 

Upon initial investigation, the following resource areas would not be impacted or would have 

insignificant impacts and will not be analyzed further:

• Cultural Resources. The Proposed Action would have no effect on archaeological or 

architectural resources. Surveys at the Depot were conducted in 2005, 2011, and 2012. The 

surveys found no National Register of Historic Places-listed or eligible archaeological or 

architectural resources at the installation (DLA 2012a).

• Hazardous Materials and Waste. The Proposed Action would have no effect on hazardous 

materials and waste. The Depot’s Hazardous Waste Management Plan establishes policies 

and procedures for complying with Title 22, Social Security, Division 4.5 of the California 

Code of Regulations as promulgated by the California Department of Toxic Substances 

Control. The implementation of the INRMP would not affect the Hazardous Waste 

Management Plan nor significantly add to the hazardous materials or waste produced or 

stored at the Depot.

• Environmental Restoration Program. The Proposed Action would have no effect on the 

environmental restoration program. The installation would still be required to identify, 

investigate, and clean up contaminated sites. The Proposed Action would not add or disturb 

any existing contaminated areas. The status of the active monitoring and remediation work at 

the Depot can be found in the Environmental Baseline Survey Report 2012 (DLA 2012b).

• Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. The Proposed Action would have no effect 

on socioeconomics. There would be no change in the number of personnel as result of the 

implementation of this INRMP; therefore, there would be no changes in area population or 

associated changes in demand for housing and services. Accordingly, the Depot has omitted 

detailed examination of socioeconomics as a resource area. Implementation of the INRMP 

would not render vulnerable any of the groups targeted for protection under Executive Order

12898, which requires federal actions to address environmental justice in minority 

populations and low-income populations. No groups of people, including racial, ethnic, or 

socioeconomic groups, would bear a disproportionate share of any resulting potential 

negative environmental consequences. 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-10 | May 2018

• Health and Safety. The Proposed Action would have no effect on health and safety at the 

Depot. Every contractor and employee at the installation is responsible for compliance with 

rules set forth by the Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration. Implementation 

of the INRMP would not affect health and safety standards at the Depot.

• Noise. The Proposed Action would have no effect on noise levels at the Depot. The ambient 

noise environment at the Depot is primarily affected by rail traffic on adjacent railroads and 

local vehicle traffic (DLA 2013a). Specific on-installation sources of noise include vehicular 

traffic, including personal vehicles, semi-trailers, forklifts, and other cargo-moving machines 

at the Depot, and occasional agriculture equipment at the Annex. 

• Transportation and Infrastructure. The Proposed Action would have no effect on the 

transportation and infrastructure of the Depot. Systems included in transportation and 

infrastructures include: transportation, electrical, natural gas, liquid fuel, potable water, 

sanitary sewer and wastewater, communications, and solid waste management. Activities 

associated with implementation of the INRMP would not cause a significant change in the 

transportation and infrastructure of the Depot.

• Air Quality and Climate Change. The Proposed Action would have no effect on air quality. 

The primary concern regarding the potential environmental effects on air quality include 

exceedances of National Ambient Air Quality Standards and other federal, state, and local 

limits; and impacts on existing air permits. Potential effects on existing pollutant emissions 

are precluded by the fact that natural resources management actions would not involve 

activities that would contribute to changes in existing air quality. Therefore, there would be 

no effects regarding air quality as a result of implementation of the INRMP and no effects on 

climate change as a result of implementation of the INRMP.

10.1 Land Use

10.1.1 Existing Conditions

The installation consists of 908 total acres. Land use categories include Industrial, Administrative, 

and Installation Maintenance and Support at the Depot and Agricultural on the Depot Annex. 

Industrial land use consists of warehousing, transportation, and light industrial activities and 

encompasses most of the Depot. Administrative land use (e.g., general purpose offices, professional 

services, community services, and technical support facilities) is located primarily at the 

northwestern corner, and at several small areas interspersed throughout the Industrial land uses in 

the remainder of the Depot. The Installation Maintenance and Support land use (e.g., facilities such 

as maintenance, fire, safety, and utility operations) is at the northwestern corner adjacent to the east 

of the Administrative land uses. The Depot is substantially built out with open spaces used for trailer 

storage, parking, and utility laydown yards (DLA 2015).

The Annex is used for agriculture (e.g., agricultural row crops and orchard operations) and, with the 

exception of an environmental remediation system, does not have any development (DLA 2015). 

Areas outside of and adjacent to the Depot include those within the City of Tracy and the

unincorporated area of San Joaquin County, while the Annex is surrounded by unincorporated areas 

of the county. Railroad tracks divide the Depot from the Annex and form the southeastern boundary 

of the Depot. Residential land uses, including Residential Low (i.e., low density at 2.1 to 5.8 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-11

residential units per gross acre) in the City of Tracy and Rural Residential in unincorporated San 

Joaquin County, are adjacent to the west and southwest, respectively, of the Depot. The remaining 

properties adjacent to the Depot and Annex are in unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County and 

are designated primarily as agricultural (General Agriculture and Agricultural-Urban Reserve land 

use), except for a small area of Limited Industrial land use immediately east of the Depot at the 

crossroads of railroads (DLA 2015).

Recreational land uses are limited to a fitness center, an informal walking/bicycle path and a ball 

field located at the northwestern corner of the Depot. Sidewalks exist in some areas; however, their 

primary function is to provide access to facilities rather than for recreational purposes. The Annex 

has no designated recreational facilities.

For more information regarding land use at the Depot, refer to Section 4.1 of the INRMP.

10.1.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial impacts on land use would be expected. Under the Proposed Action, 

greater guidance on the overall land use management objective would be afforded. Land uses would 

not specifically be expected to change at the Depot, but instead land use patterns would be 

enhanced through planning for more suitable habitat for native species.

No Action Alternative. No effects would be expected. No changes to land use associated with 

natural resources management would be expected under the No Action Alternative.

10.2 Geology

10.2.1 Existing Conditions

The installation is near the west-central border of the San Joaquin Valley, which constitutes the 

southern region of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The San Joaquin Valley is a topographic 

and structural basin with the axis offset to the west and gently sloping to the north. It is bounded by 

the Sierra Nevada Range to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, and the Sacramento River-San 

Joaquin River Delta to the north (DLA 2014). For more information regarding geology at the Depot, 

refer to Section 4.4 of the INRMP.

10.2.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial effects would be expected. By implementing an effective soil erosion 

and sedimentation program, impacts on geologic resources associated with erosion and 

sedimentation on the Depot would be minimized. Indirect beneficial effects would result from native 

plant seeding and revegetation.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected. By failing to implement an 

effective soil erosion and sedimentation program, impacts on geologic resources associated with 

erosion and sedimentation at the Depot would be expected to continue.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-12 | May 2018

10.3 Topography

10.3.1 Existing Conditions

The Depot is located in the lower San Joaquin Valley which includes floodplains, alluvial fans, fan 

terraces, basins, dunes, low terraces, and high terraces. San Joaquin Valley slopes are generally 

level, although some areas are undulating to hilly because of dissection and erosion (USDA 1992). 

On the Depot specifically, the area is characterized by mostly flat uplands which are sloping gently 

downward to the northeast towards the broad delta formed by the San Joaquin and Sacramento 

Rivers. The elevation ranges from 110 feet above sea level at the south corner to 45 feet at the 

northern boundary of the Annex (URS 2010). For more information regarding topography at the 

Depot, refer to Section 4.4.2 of the INRMP.

10.3.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial effects would be expected. By implementing an effective soil erosion 

and sedimentation program, impacts on topography associated with erosion and sedimentation at 

the Depot would be minimized. Indirect beneficial effects would result from native plant seeding and 

revegetation.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected. By failing to implement an 

effective soil erosion and sedimentation program, impacts on topography associated with erosion 

and sedimentation at the Depot would be expected to continue.

10.4 Soils

10.4.1 Existing Conditions

The predominant naturally occurring soils underlying the Depot are the Capay-Urban land complex 

while the Annex is mainly characterized by Capay clay, with localized areas of the El Solyo clay 

loam and Stomar clay loam. The Capay-Urban land complex associated with the Depot is almost 

entirely developed, but those areas still exposed at the surface are similar to those of Capay clay 

(USDA 1992). For more information regarding soils at the Depot, refer to Section 4.4.3 of the 

INRMP.

10.4.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial effects would be expected. By implementing an effective soil erosion 

and sedimentation program, impacts on soils associated with erosion and sedimentation would be 

minimized. Monitoring of soil conditions to identify potential problem areas, the implementation of 

conservation measures in areas where exposure of soils is necessary, and, when possible, the 

avoidance of activities likely to result in erosion would minimize potential impacts on the soil 

resources and result in a reduction in erosion. Some projects would result in soil disturbance, which 

can be mitigated through seeding and revegetation.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected. By failing to implement an 

effective soil erosion and sedimentation program, impacts on soils associated with erosion and 

sedimentation at the Depot would be expected to continue. The No Action Alternative does not 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-13

include the implementation of soil conservation measures, or a plan of action to prevent or minimize 

potential soil problems related to erosion and sedimentation before their occurrence. Implementation 

of the No Action Alternative would involve reactive management to problems after their occurrence, 

rather than managing the resources to prevent impacts.

10.5 Water Resources

10.5.1 Existing Conditions

Water resources are defined in this discussion as surface water, wetlands, and riparian. The Depot 

is located in the major hydrologic unit area of San Joaquin and in the San Joaquin watershed 

(HUC8). The major hydrologic features surrounding the Depot include the Sacramento and San 

Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. A stretch of the American River below Folsom Lake has been 

designated as a National Wild and Scenic River. Two major canals are in the region: the stateowned California Aqueduct and the federal Delta-Mendota Canal. Both canals move water from 

California Delta to Buena Vista Lake near Bakersfield (USDA 2006).

There are no naturally occurring surface water resources on the Depot. There are no wetlands 

regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act on the Depot. The principal drainages near the 

Depot are the Tom Payne Slough north of the Depot, Corral Hollow Creek to its south, and the San 

Joaquin River, into which both the Slough and the Creek flow, several miles east of the Depot. 

Surface water runoff from within the Depot is collected in drains that lead to the unlined stormwater 

detention pond located in the northwest corner of the Depot. Water evaporates or infiltrates into the 

ground beneath the unlined detention pond and migrates toward the water table. If the stormwater 

discharge pond levels exceed its capacity, the stormwater is pumped and discharged to an offsite 

canal (DLA 2012a). On the Annex, unlined ditches convey stormwater runoff to local percolation 

areas between farm fields (DLA 2012c).

For more information regarding water resources at the Depot, refer to Section 4.5 and 4.6 of the 

INRMP.

10.5.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial effects would be expected. The establishment of riparian buffers would 

result in beneficial effects on water quality by reducing nonpoint source impacts associated with 

runoff and adjacent land uses. Implementation of the Proposed Action would protect ponds that 

support wetland vegetation. Additional efforts would be made to reduce impacts on wetland 

vegetation by planning activities, when possible, in a manner consistent with wetlands protection 

objectives. Indirect beneficial effects would result from soil and erosion management.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected. The No Action Alternative does 

not provide a formal plan of action for monitoring and protecting the water resources at the Depot. 

Water resources are vulnerable to degradation without the implementation of a formal plan of action 

that includes watershed protection measures and nonpoint source pollution controls. Also, the No 

Action Alternative does not establish limited-use wetland buffers to protect water quality by reducing 

nonpoint source impacts associated with runoff and adjacent land uses, nor does it establish a 

formal set of management measures to protect and enhance wetlands by preventing or minimizing 

potential impacts resulting from mission-related activities.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-14 | May 2018

10.6 Floodplains

10.6.1 Existing Conditions

The Depot does not fall within a federally regulated floodplain. Per the California Department of 

Water Resources Awareness Floodplain Maps, the Depot is not within an Awareness Floodplain 

(100-year flood hazard area). The closest designated Awareness Floodplain is 1 mile south of the 

Depot. The intent of the Awareness Floodplain Mapping project is to identify all pertinent flood 

hazard areas for areas not mapped under the Federal Emergency Management Agency National 

Flood Insurance Program and to provide the community and residents an additional tool in 

understanding potential flood hazards in areas not currently mapped as a regulated floodplain.

10.6.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Minor, indirect beneficial effects would be expected. While there are no federally 

regulated floodplains on the installation, implementation of the watershed management actions could 

result in beneficial results by the reduction of sedimentation, erosion, and input into connected 

drainages with regulated floodplains off the installation during storm events.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected. The No Action Alternative does 

not provide for the implementation of a routine assessment and monitoring program to protect water 

resources and their related habitats. Also, the No Action Alternative does not establish a formal set 

of management measures to protect and enhance regional floodplains by preventing or minimizing 

potential impacts resulting from mission-related activities. 

10.7 Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

10.7.1 Existing Conditions

There are no naturally occurring surface water resources on the Depot. The principal drainages near 

the Depot are the Tom Payne Slough north of the Depot, Corral Hollow Creek to its south, and the 

San Joaquin River, into which both the Slough and the Creek flow, several miles east of the Depot. 

There is a percolation/evaporation pond on site that supports wetland vegetation and exhibits the 

structure and function of a wetland. Surface water runoff from the entire Depot is collected into a 

stormwater drainage system and transported to this unlined holding pond in the northern corner of 

the site. Water in the pond evaporates or percolates downward into the soil. If inflows exceed the 

capacity of the pond, excess water is pumped to a local drainage ditch that ultimately drains into the 

San Joaquin River, 4.5 miles northeast of the site (DLA 2013b). On the Annex, unlined ditches 

convey stormwater runoff to local percolation areas between farm fields (DLA 2012c).

10.7.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Minor, indirect beneficial effects would be expected. While there is no naturally

occurring habitat on the installation, implementation of the watershed management actions could 

result in beneficial results by the reduction of sedimentation, erosion, and input into connected 

drainages off the installation during storm events. Assessment of riparian habitats would provide a 

baseline that can be used in tracking conditions and trends of these habitats, which would allow 

management practices to be applied where and when needed. Additional management measures 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-15

established to protect or enhance riparian habitats would include proper planning; limiting pesticide 

and fertilizer use in the riparian buffer areas; and minimizing the modification of existing hydrologic 

characteristics to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected. The No Action Alternative does 

not provide for the implementation of a routine assessment and monitoring program to protect these 

habitats. Also, the No Action Alternative does not establish limited-use riparian buffers to protect 

water quality by reducing nonpoint source impacts associated with runoff and adjacent land uses, 

nor does it establish a formal set of management measures to protect and enhance these habitats 

by preventing or minimizing potential impacts resulting from mission-related activities.

10.8 Vegetation

10.8.1 Existing Conditions

There are limited natural lands at the Depot; a majority of the land has been previously disturbed 

and is developed with industrial land uses with minimal native vegetation. The remaining vegetation 

consists primarily of annual grasslands in the northern and eastern portions of the Depot. These 

areas are dominated by various brome species (Bromus ssp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), 

yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and field mustard (Brassica rapa). The Annex consists of 

460 acres of agricultural land, including cultivated crops such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and 

safflower (Carthamus tinctoris) (DLA 2013c). A non-native woodland consists of approximately 1 

acre directly outside of the eastern end of the fenced portion of the Depot. This area is surrounded 

by railroad tracks and is dominated by dense stands of the non-native plant species giant cane 

(Arundo donax) and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima).

10.8.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial effects for vegetation would be expected. Implementation of the 

Proposed Action would result in conservation of native vegetation, management of non-native 

vegetation, and the reestablishment of native vegetation. Also, under the Proposed Action, rare flora 

would be treated with added importance and valued for their contribution to the natural heritage of 

the Installation.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected to continue. Under the No Action

Alternative, the health and condition of the vegetation would not be improved, and management 

measures to maintain or increase the abundance and biodiversity of vegetation at the Depot would 

not be implemented, thereby resulting in a continuing decline in the quality and complexity of the 

vegetation communities. Decline in community quality and complexity would continue to affect site 

stability and wildlife habitat.

10.9 Wildlife

10.9.1 Existing Conditions

The Depot consists mainly of disturbed lands and small, fragmented annual grasslands which 

provide limited habitat value for wildlife. There are no sources of perennial water on the Depot, 

resulting in no habitat for fish. The areas that have the potential to offer habitat to wildlife include the 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-16 | May 2018

large water treatment retention basin, the baseball field and picnic area, and the agricultural fields in 

the Annex. For more information regarding wildlife at the Depot, refer to Section 4.6.2 of the INRMP.

10.9.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial effects for wildlife species would be expected. Implementation of the 

Proposed Action would result in conservation of native habitat and the reestablishment of native 

vegetation would result in the protection of habitat for various wildlife species. Also, under the 

Proposed Action, rare flora and fauna would be treated with added importance and valued for their 

contribution to the natural heritage of the Installation.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected to continue. Under the No Action 

Alternative, the health and condition of the wildlife populations would not be improved, and 

management measures to maintain or increase the abundance and biodiversity of wildlife at the 

Depot would not be implemented. In addition, management measures designed to protect and 

enhance wildlife habitats (i.e., riparian, wetlands, terrestrial) would not be implemented, thereby 

resulting in a continuing decline in the quality and complexity of the habitats. Decline in habitat 

quality and complexity would continue to affect wildlife and biodiversity adversely.

10.10Endangered, Threatened and Rare Species

10.10.1 Existing Conditions

No federally listed plant or wildlife species have been observed at the Defense Distribution Depot

San Joaquin. 

There are four CDFW state species of concern (SSC) bird and one state-threatened bird species 

that have been documented within 5 miles of the Depot: burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia); 

California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia); tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor); Swainson’s 

hawk (Buteo swainsoni); and song sparrow – Modesto population (Melospiza melodia). Two CDFW 

SSC mammals, one federal- and state-endangered mammal, and one federal-endangered and 

state-threatened mammal have been documented within 5 miles of the Depot: American badger

(Taxidea taxus); riparian brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius); San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes 

macrotis mutica); and San Joaquin pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus inornatus). Additionally, 

one federally and state-threatened amphibian, the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma 

californiense), and one CDFW SSC invertebrate, Sacramento anthicid beetle (Anthicus sacramento),

have been documented within 5 miles of the Depot. 

State-listed species that are not federally listed under the ESA are considered in management of 

natural resources. There are state-listed species, migratory birds, and plant species of concern at 

the Depot that are not provided species-specific management but are taken into consideration in 

developing land management actions and priorities. For more information regarding endangered, 

threatened and rare species at the Depot, refer to Section 4.6.3 of the INRMP.

10.10.2 Environmental Consequences

Proposed Action. Beneficial effects on all special-status species, including listed state-listed 

species and SSC, at the installation would be expected. Implementation of the Proposed Action 
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-17

would provide protection and management for ESA-listed and state-listed species found at the 

installation. Also, under the Proposed Action, rare flora and fauna would be treated with added 

importance and valued for their contribution to the natural heritage of the Installation.

No Action Alternative. Minor adverse effects would be expected for special-status species not 

protected under the ESA. The No Action Alternative does not provide special measures for the 

protection and management of these species or future nesting activity that might occur. 

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would continue to leave these species vulnerable to 

potential impacts that could adversely affect their existence at the Installation.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-18 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-19

11 Cumulative and Other Effects

A cumulative effect is defined as an effect on the environment that results from the incremental 

effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place locally or regionally over a 

period of time.

Implementation of the INRMP would result in a comprehensive natural resources management 

strategy for the Depot that represents compliance, restoration, prevention, and conservation; initiates 

a cohesive management approach for natural resources on the Depot; and meets legal and policy 

requirements consistent with national natural resources management philosophies. Implementation 

would be expected initially to improve existing environmental conditions at the Depot, as shown by 

the potential for beneficial effects in Table 2. Over time, adoption of the Proposed Action would 

enable the Depot to achieve their goal of maintaining ecosystem viability and ensuring sustainability 

of desired military mission conditions.

Table 10. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences

Resource Area/Environmental Condition

Environmental Consequence

No Action Alternative Proposed Action

Land Use None Beneficial

Climate None None

Air Quality None None

Geology Minor Adverse Beneficial

Topography Minor Adverse Beneficial

Soils Minor Adverse Beneficial

Water Resources Minor Adverse Beneficial

Wetlands Minor Adverse None

Floodplains None None

Aquatic Habitat None None

Riparian Habitat Minor Adverse Beneficial

Vegetation Minor Adverse Beneficial

Wildlife Minor Adverse Beneficial

Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Species Minor Adverse Beneficial

Cultural Resources None None
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-20 | May 2018

Table 10. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences

Resource Area/Environmental Condition

Environmental Consequence

No Action Alternative Proposed Action

Hazardous and Toxic Materials None None

Noise None None

Socioeconomic Resources None None

Environmental Justice None None

Infrastructure None None

Although growth and development can be expected to continue outside of the Depot and within the 

surrounding natural areas, cumulative adverse effects on these resources would not be expected 

when added to the effects of activities associated with the proposed management measures 

included in the INRMP.

11.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

No unavoidable adverse effects would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. 

11.2 Compatibility of the Proposed Action and Alternatives 

with the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and 

Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Implementation of the installation’s INRMP would not result in any significant or incompatible land 

use changes on- or off-installation. The INRMP considers the installation’s existing conditions and 

constraints in the siting, design, and timing of the proposed management goals, objectives, and 

actions.

11.3 Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Human

Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of 

Long-term Productivity

The long-term beneficial effects would ensure that the installation is able to meet its current and 

future mission requirements, while ensuring the sustainability of the installation.

11.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

The Proposed Action would not involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of energy 

resources and human resources.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-21

11.5 Natural or Depletable Resource Requirements and 

Conservation Potential

The Proposed Action would require no significant use of natural or depletable resources.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-22 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-23

12 Conclusion

Section 1.4 provides information on which resource areas were selected to be analyzed in detail in 

the EA and the rationale behind each decision. Table 2 summarizes the potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the environmental resource areas analyzed in 

detail. Implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not result in any 

individual or cumulatively significant environmental impacts. Therefore, preparation of an EIS is not 

warranted and issuance of a FONSI would be appropriate.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-24 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

May 2018 | F-25

13 References

DLA 2009 Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). 2009. Defense Logistics Agency Instruction 

4108: Natural and Cultural Resources Conservation Program. September 

2009.

DLA 2011 DLA. 2011. DLA Regulation 1000.22: Environmental Considerations in 

Defense Logistics Agency Actions. December 2011.

DLA 2012a DLA. 2012. Historic Resource Survey at Tracy Site. December 2012.

DLA 2012b DLA. 2012. Updated Environmental Baseline Survey for Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin – Tracy Site. June 2012. 

DLA 2012c DLA 2012. Well Monitoring Program. 2011 Annual Monitoring Report, Defense 

Distribution Depot San Joaquin – Tracy Site. January 2012.

DLA 2013a DLA. 2013. Real Property Master Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San 

Joaquin. December 2013.

DLA 2013b DLA. 2013. Sustainability Plan for Defense Distribution Depot, San Joaquin. 

February 2013.

DLA 2013c DLA. 2013. Biological Resources Survey Report at Tracy Site. February 2013.

DLA 2014 DLA. 2014. Hazardous Waste Management Plan for Defense Distribution 

Depot, San Joaquin – Tracy Site. June 2014. 

DLA 2015 DLA. 2015. Draft Final Environmental Assessment Addressing Implementation 

of the Real Property Master Plan. Defense Distribution Depot – San Joaquin 

Tracy Site. 

DLA 2018 DLA 2018. Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan.

URS 2010 URS 2010. DLA Distribution San Joaquin, California: Defense Distribution 

Depot San Joaquin – Tracy Site Second Five-year Review Report – Draft. 

Prepared for HQ AFCEE/EXA. August 2010.

USDA 1992 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

USDA 2006 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land Resource

Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean, 

and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
Environmental Assessment

San Joaquin, California

F-26 | May 2018

This page intentionally left blank.