COASTAL CONSERVANCY

Staff Recommendation June 30, 2004

INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT (ISP) PHASE II- CONTROL PROGRAM AT: COYOTE CREEK/MOWRY SLOUGH, OLD ALAMEDA CREEK, AND WHALE’S TAIL MARSH

99-054 Project Manager: Maxene Spellman

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Amendment of the Conservancy’s September 25, 2003 authorization to disburse funds from existing CALFED grants for the removal of invasive Spartina by authorizing the supplemental disbursement of up to $119,500 of CALFED funds and up to $50,000 of Conservancy funds as grants for expanded and additional Spartina control and treatment demonstration projects within the southern San Francisco Bay Estuary and for a signage program associated with the demonstration projects.

LOCATION: The baylands, creeks and sloughs of southwestern Alameda County.

PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Map Exhibit 2: September 25, 2003 Staff Recommendation Exhibit 3: Environmental Documentation: Site-specific Plans and Checklists for Proposed Expanded and New Demonstration Projects

RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS:

Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31164 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby amends its September 25, 2003 authorization for grants for control and treatment under the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) Control Program by authorizing the supplemental disbursement of up to one hundred nineteen thousand five hundred dollars ($119,500) of existing CALFED funds to carry out expanded and new control and treatment demonstration projects under the ISP Control Program and up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) of Conservancy funds to implement a signage program for the demonstration projects, for a total disbursement of three hundred fifty thousand one hundred dollars ($ 350,100). Funds

Page 1 of 9 PROJECT NAME

from this supplemental authorization will be disbursed as follows: 1) Up to forty one thousand five hundred dollars ($41,500) of Calfed grant funds to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to expand the removal of invasive Spartina at Coyote Creek/Mowry Slough; 2) up to twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000) of Calfed grant funds to Alameda County Flood Control District (ACFCD) for the removal of invasive Spartina at the new project site of Old Alameda Creek; 3) up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) of Calfed grant funds to DFG for removal of invasive Spartina at the new project site of Whale’s Tail Marsh; and 4) up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) of Conservancy funds to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the design, preparation, installation and maintenance of signs that will serve to educate the public concerning the regionally coordinated ISP and the nature, need for and impacts associated with invasive Spartina and its removal. This authorization is subject to the same conditions imposed by sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Conservancy’s September 25, 2003 authorization.”

Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1. Disbursement of additional funds to expand Spartina control and treatment demonstration projects at Coyote Creek/Mowry Slough, for new demonstration projects at Old Alameda Creek and Whale’s Tail Marsh and for implementation of an associated signage program is consistent with the Conservancy authorization and findings adopted September 25, 2003, as shown in the staff recommendation attached as Exhibit 2 to this staff recommendation. 2. The environmental effects associated with the expansion of the Coyote Creek/Mowry Slough treatment project, the proposed Old Alameda Creek and Whale’s Tail Marsh treatment projects proposed for grant funding by the Conservancy, and the implementation of a signage program associated with the Spartina control and treatment demonstration projects and the mitigation measures to reduce or avoid those effects were fully identified and considered in the program FEIS/R certified by the Coastal Conservancy on September 25, 2003.”

PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: On September 25, 2003, the Conservancy authorized the disbursement of $180,600 in funds, available from two CALFED grants to the Conservancy, for the purpose of awarding grants to eight organizations to undertake projects to control and treat invasive Spartina, a non-native cordgrass, at 12 sites within the San Francisco Bay Estuary, including a site at Coyote Creek/Mowrey Slough. (See Exhibit 2, the staff recommendation related to the September 25, 2003 authorization.) As explained in detail in the September 25, 2003 staff recommendation, treatment and control of invasive Spartina and its hybrids within the San Francisco Bay Estuary is critical to the long-term health of the Estuary and to the species which inhabit and rely upon the salt marshes and tidal flats along its perimeter. In addition, the spread of non-native Spartina threatens restoration efforts within the Estuary. Invasive Spartina

Page 2 of 9 PROJECT NAME

spreads at a greater than exponential rate, and every marsh restoration project implemented within the south and central San Francisco Bay Estuary in the past 15 years has been invaded by non-native invasive Spartina.

A. Treatment Projects

This authorization is, in part, to disburse additional funds from existing CALFED grants for invasive Spartina treatment demonstration projects in order to expand the treatment area at Coyote Creek/Mowry Slough to over 34 acres, and to initiate new treatment demonstration projects at Old Alameda Creek and at Whale’s Tail Marsh. These funds will be granted to USFWS, ACFCD, and DFG. The addition of these treatment projects to the 12 projects that have been previously authorized will result in significant progress towards achieving the goals of the ISP. Description of the treatment work at the three proposed sites is as follows: 1) Expansion of the Coyote Creek/Mowry Slough Demonstration Treatment Site Within the USFWS Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (“The Refuge”) This authorization will broaden the area targeted for treatment from 0.6 net acres to 34 net acres and extend it from the southern border of Alameda County, where the current project was defined, and north to the Dumbarton Bridge. Numerous stands of invasive Spartina grow within this part of the Refuge. Because of the greater than exponential rate of spread, if left uncontrolled, the invasive Spartina growing adjacent to the original project boundaries will rapidly spread into the originally defined project area. The significant enlargement of the treatment area is aimed at preventing the small original project from becoming re-infested, and significantly increasing USFWS’s chances for successful control of invasive Spartina within the Refuge. The area slated for treatment in 2004 comprises 34 net acres of non-native invasive Spartina in a 1,199-acre setting of open and restored marshland habitat and channel banks. Treatment will involve the application of herbicide using some or all of the following methods: airboat, shallow- bottomed boats with outboard motors, spray trucks and/or backpack sprayers. The area is confirmed habitat for California clapper rail and all control activities therefore cannot take place until after its nesting and mating season, post-September 1st.

2) Two New Sites - Old Alameda Creek and Whale’s Tail Marsh As part of DFG’s South Bay Salt Pond Interim Stewardship Plan effort, DFG plans to move forward in 2004 with a levee breech to implement the Eden Landing Marsh Restoration project. This restoration project is directly adjacent to Old Alameda Creek and Whale’s Tail Marsh where dense infestations of invasive Spartina grow. Based on the experience of the past fifteen years, unless the invasive Spartina at these adjacent sites is treated prior to the levee breach, it appears inevitable that the invasive Spartina will rapidly invade the newly created marsh. If invasive Spartina were not removed on the two adjacent sites and the Eden Landing site were to become infested, removal at Eden Landing would be problematic because the site is difficult to access for treatment purposes. The two proposed projects are as follows: a. Old Alameda Creek This area consists of three Sub-Areas owned by ACFCD: The Northern banks of the

Page 3 of 9 PROJECT NAME

Old Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel (OAC), the Central Island of the OAC, and the Southern Bank of the OAC. Together these Sub-Areas comprise some 18.4 acres of invasive Spartina. This area is confirmed habitat for the endangered California clapper rail. Therefore, control work cannot begin until after September 1st. The treatment goal is to strive for full treatment of the area. Treatment methods will include herbicide application via one or all of the following methods: helicopter application, spray trucks, lightweight, tracked amphibious vehicles and/or backpack sprayers.

b. Whale’s Tail Marsh This area consists of two Sub-Areas, Northern and Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh, owned by DFG. Together these areas comprise 57 acres of invasive Spartina. Funds made available through this proposed grant will also serve to augment work on an additional adjacent 15 acres. The extra fifteen acres of invasive Spartina within the Northern Whale’s Tail marsh are to be treated by a separate ISP partner utilizing Caltrans mitigation funds. All these areas within Whale’s Tail Marsh are highly complex marshland habitats containing channels, mudflats, high marsh pans, bay- edge escarpments, levee systems, restored marsh, channel mouths and other habitat types. Treatment methods will include herbicide application drawing from the same menu of methods as described for the Old Alameda Creek area. California clapper rail have been found in two of the three Sub-Areas, and therefore control activities in those areas will occur post-September 1st.

The proposed authorization will enhance partnerships with USFWS and ACFCD, and initiate DFG’s commitment and participation in treatment operations. These partnerships are essential for the success of a regionally coordinated effort. Further, these projects will demonstrate methods of Spartina control options including aerial and ground-based herbicide applications. B. Educational Signage The proposed educational signage is an important feature of the public outreach component of the ISP Control Program. It is intended to educate the public concerning the regionally coordinated ISP and the nature, need for and impacts associated with invasive Spartina and its removal. The educational signs will also serve to inform the public about what they observe as treatment is occurring. Implementation will involve working with ISP and partner organizations removing invasive Spartina to design, produce, install and maintain 19 signs at or adjacent to the 13 demonstration sites. To achieve the public outreach purpose, these signs will be installed prior to implementation of treatment for the 2004 treatment season that begins September 1. At a minimum all signs will include the following basic information: • Partner organizations collaborating with the Conservancy’s regionally coordinated ISP to remove invasive Spartina • Impacts of non-native Spartina infestations • Methods used in Spartina control & expected outcomes • Photographs and/or maps • Spartina control timeline

Page 4 of 9 PROJECT NAME

• Contact information

ABAG, as the grant recipient, will utilize the San Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP) to implement the educational signage program. SFEP is an organization working under the auspices of ABAG. SFEP’s primary purpose is to assist with implementation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) for the San Francisco Estuary. The CCMP, developed in 1994 with input from the state and federal agencies charged with management of the Bay, is a road map for implementation of the “State of the Estuary” report which evaluates issues for restoring and enhancing the natural ecosystem of the Bay. In 2003 the CCMP/SFEP stakeholders, including the Conservancy staff, identified control of invasive species, along with restoration of wetlands, as the number one priority for implementation of the CCMP. Thus, while ABAG is the grantee for the ISP educational signage program, SFEP will carry it out to help achieve this priority. It is anticipated that for subsequent treatment seasons additional signage will be needed at new treatment sites. In this regard, Conservancy staff applied to the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund in March for $115,000 to construct and install additional educational signage. However, a response from the Goldman Fund is not expected until after the commencement of the 2004 treatment season. While staff will continue to seek this and/or other outside funding for the completion of the educational signage program, Conservancy funds are currently needed to achieve the necessary public outreach for the first set of ISP demonstration treatment projects.

PROJECT FINANCING: A. Financing for the Proposed Supplemental Authorization

Coastal Conservancy (Proposition 40) $50,000 Coastal Conservancy (augmented authorization using CALFED funds) $119,500

USFWS (augmented match) 5,800 ACFCDC (augmented match) 3,800 DFG (Caltrans compensatory mitigation funds) 5,000 DFG (in-kind services) 1,800 Total Cost $185,900

The Conservancy addition of $119,500 for the existing grants to USFWS and ACFCD and for a new grant to DFG is from funds remaining under 1999 and 2001 CALFED grants to the Conservancy. Under the terms of the CALFED grants, the Conservancy may use these funds for Spartina treatment and control projects. The Conservancy’s contribution of $50,000 for the educational signage is expected to come from the Conservancy’s FY 02/03 Bay Program appropriation from the “California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002” (Proposition 40). The proposed authorization for educational signage is consistent with the funding source because this project serves to carry out the public

Page 5 of 9 PROJECT NAME outreach and educational component of a project that directly serves to enhance and protect land and water resources, and because the project includes a commitment for a matching contribution by a number of other public agencies.

B. Financing of Grants for Treatment Demonstration Projects including proposed Amendments to Existing Authorizations (supplemental authorizations in bold)

Grantee Site(s) SCC Grantee match ACFCD Alameda Flood $24,000 $20,000 Control Channel ACFCD Old Alameda Creek $28,000 $3,800 DFG Whale’s Tail Marsh $50,000 $6,800

East Bay Regional 1. Emeryville Crescent $8,400 $2,000 Park District 2. Oro Loma Marsh $12,000 $8,000 3. Point Pinole $1,800 $2,000 Don Edwards San 1. Bair/Greco Islands $108,000 $80,000 Francisco Bay Nat’l. 2. Coyote/Mowry $1,800 $1,200 Wildlife Refuge Slough Area (USFWS) 3. Expansion of #2. $41,500 $5,800 City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Baylands $1,800 $500

California Dept. 1. Southeast San $12,000 $6,500 of Parks and Rec. Francisco Shoreline 2. Southampton Marsh $1,800 $6,500 City of San Rafael Pickleweed Park $1,800 $800 Friends of Corte Corte Madera Creek $3,000 $3,000 Madera Creek Tiburon Audubon Blackie’s Pasture $3,000 $1,500 TOTAL $300,100 $148,400 TOTAL COSTS TREATMENT PROJECTS: $448,500

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S ENABLING LEGISLATION: As described in the previous staff recommendations (Exhibit 2) and associated Conservancy resolutions, the ISP and implementation of the Control Program serve to carry out the objectives for the San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program mandated by Chapter 4.5 of the Conservancy’s enabling legislation (Public Resources Code Sections 31160-31164). The project is authorized by Section 31162 of the Public Resources Code, which allows the Conservancy to undertake projects and award grants in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area to public and private agencies and organizations. The project is consistent with Public Resources Code Section

Page 6 of 9 PROJECT NAME

31162(a), since both the ISP and its Control Program will serve to protect and restore tidal marshes, which are natural habitats of regional importance.

This project is appropriate for prioritization under the selection criteria set forth in Section 31163(c) in that: (1) it is consistent with the regional Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals, A Report of Habitat Recommendations and with the CCMP; (2) it results in coordination among various federal, state and local agencies and nonprofit groups that are collaborating with the Conservancy’s regionally coordinated Control Program; (3) it will be implemented in a timely manner within the 2004 control season (September – October, 2004); (4) if implementation of the Control Program does not begin this year, the opportunity to achieve the control/eradication of non-native invasive Spartina may be lost.; and (5) the proposal includes matching funds from USFWS, ACFCD, and DFG.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) & OBJECTIVE(S): San Francisco Bay Program Goal Matrix under Regional Projects identifies the Spartina Control project as a program of regional significance under the Strategic Plan. Consistent with Goal 5, Objective C of the Conservancy’s Strategic Plan, the proposed new and expanded treatment projects will serve to further control and eradicate non-native invasive Spartina that threatens native coastal habitats. If left uncontrolled, invasive Spartina will potentially spread up and down the coast to other California estuaries. Consistent with Goal 10, Objective A, the proposed new and expanded projects will enhance and restore wetlands by removal of the invasive Spartina.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S PROJE CT SELECTION CRITERIA & GUIDELINES:

The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy's Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines adopted January 24, 2001, in the following respects:

Required Criteria 1. Promotion of the Conservancy’s statutory programs and purposes: See the “Consistency with Conservancy’s Enabling Legislation” section above. 2. Consistency with purposes of the funding source: See the “Project Financing” section above. 3. Support of the public: This project is supported by regulatory agencies, public agencies and special districts, nonprofit organizations, and scientists that work to protect and restore wetlands. This broad support is demonstrated by the numerous Letters of Support as part of the original October 28, 1999 Staff Recommendation. Additionally, a number of agencies and environmental organizations have expressed support in comments received on the Draft EIS/R (Chapter 10 of the FEIS/R). Furthermore, in the published CCMP, SFEP stakeholders

Page 7 of 9 PROJECT NAME

have identified control of invasive species as the top priority for the restoration and protection of the San Francisco Estuary. 4. Location: The proposed expanded and new demonstration projects are all located in Alameda County, one of the nine Bay Area counties. 5. Need: The proposed new treatment projects are needed to prevent the anticipated infestation of the Eden Landing Marsh restoration scheduled for a levee breach in 2004. Without the additional Conservancy funding, this critical work would not occur in a timely manner. In addition, no alternative funding for the important educational signage has been located to date. 6. Greater-than-local interest: Introduced Spartina threatens to move up the delta, and down the coast to southern California. In the San Francisco Bay, introduced Spartina threatens to displace listed state and federal special status species, such as the endangered California clapper rail, California black rail, and the salt marsh harvest mouse.

Additional Criteria 7. Urgency: Many experts believe that if the spread of introduced Spartina is not controlled within the next few years, the greater than exponential spread of the plants and extensive hybridization with the native Spartina foliosa will preclude any chance for successful control in the future. If the Conservancy and its partners can address the problem appropriately in the short-term, long-term maintenance expenses can be avoided. In addition, the proposed new treatment projects are imperative in order to prevent the anticipated infestation of the Eden Landing Marsh restoration scheduled for a levee breach in 2004. Furthermore, production and installation of educational signage is urgently needed at the demonstration treatment sites within the next few months to inform the public about ISP and the treatment that they will see taking place during the 2004 treatment season. 8. Leverage: See the “Project Financing” section above. 9. Readiness: Grantees have worked in close collaboration with the Conservancy to prepare site-specific plans and are poised to implement them as soon as funds are available for expenditure. 10. Realization of prior Conservancy goals: The control and eradication of invasive non-native Spartina has been a high priority goal of the Conservancy since 1999 when it initiated the regionally coordinated effort for the preservation of wetlands in the San Francisco Estuary. 11. Cooperation: This project enjoys commitments from ISP grantees anxious to collaborate with the Conservancy’s regionally coordinated effort. Additionally, the proposed new Whale’s Tail Marsh project leverages $25,000 of additional Caltrans mitigation funds towards treatment of an additional 15 acres of invasive Spartina at the northern end of the marsh adjacent to this proposed project site.

CONSISTENCY WITH SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN: The Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan, Section entitled “Marshes and Mudflats,” Policy 3 (c) (page 9) that states: “the quality of existing marshes should be improved by appropriate measures whenever possible.” The main

Page 8 of 9 PROJECT NAME purpose of this project is to remove invasive Spartina to improve the long-term quality of existing marsh habitat in the baylands of the San Francisco Estuary.

COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: This authorization involves expanded or new site-specific projects (and signage associated with those projects) that fall under the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program” (FEIS/R) prepared for the ISP Control Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/R was adopted by the Conservancy through its September 25, 2003 resolution certifying the EIR. The FEIS/R is maintained and available for review at the offices of the Conservancy. The FEIS/R is a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq., hereafter “Guidelines”) in that it analyzes the potential effects of implementing treatment methods for a regional program, rather than the impacts of a single individual project. This program-level EIS/R identifies mitigation measures that will be applied to reduce or eliminate impacts at treatment locations. The Conservancy may use the FEIS/R as a basis for “tiered” CEQA review and approval of individual treatment projects under the Control Program, including the new and expanded treatment proposed by this staff recommendation. A subsequent activity that follows under a program EIR that has been assessed pursuant to CEQA must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If the agency proposing the later activity finds that its effects and required mitigation to reduce those effects were already identified and considered under the program EIR, the activity can be approved with no further environmental documentation (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168(c)). The Guidelines suggest the use of a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. Each of the proposed expanded or new demonstration projects has a prepared site-specific plan, describing the site and identifying the precise treatment activities proposed. In addition, each has been assessed by use of a checklist to determine whether the effects of those activities and the mitigation required have been considered by the FEIS/R. This documentation is attached as Exhibit 3. In each case, the conclusion is that the program FEIS/R did consider the effects associated with the demonstration project and that there are no new mitigation measures required. Conservancy staff recommends that the Conservancy adopt a finding to that effect.

Page 9 of 9

San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2004 Treatment Sites

INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT – PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL PROGRAM

Agenda Item 3. September 25, 2003

COASTAL CONSERVANCY

Staff Recommendation September 25, 2003

INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT – PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL PROGRAM

File No. 99-054 Project Manager: Maxene Spellman

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consideration and certification of the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program” (FEIS/R); and authorization: 1) to implement the Spartina Control Program; 2) to accept $50,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as an augmentation of a 1999 CALFED grant to the Conservancy; 3) to disburse up to $700,000, consisting of the $50,000 in augmented 1999 CALFED grant funds and $650,000 of Conservancy funds, for the purchase of equipment and for environmental consulting services needed to operate and manage the Spartina Control Program; and 4) to disburse up to $180,600 in funds, available under the 1999 CALFED grant and a 2001 CALFED grant to the Conservancy, as separate grants to ten organizations for Spartina treatment and removal demonstration projects.

LOCATION: The baylands and lower creek channels of the nine counties that bound the San Francisco Bay.

PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy

RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS:

Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby certifies the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program” (FEIS/R), attached to this staff recommendation as its Exhibit 1, authorizes the Conservancy to implement the Spartina Control Program consistent with Alternative 1 of the FEIS/R, as modified by incorporation of all mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/R, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached to the FEIS/R as Attachment K. The Conservancy further authorizes:

3–1 1. The acceptance of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by augmentation and amendment of a 1999 CALFED grant to the Conservancy and disbursement of those funds as described in paragraph 2, below. 2. The disbursement of an amount not to exceed seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000), consisting of the fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) in augmented 1999 CALFED grant funds and six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($650,000) in Conservancy funds, for the purchase of equipment and for environmental consulting services needed to operate and manage the regionally coordinated Spartina Control Program consistent with environmental law and regulation, including the continued services of a Project Director, Field Operations Manager, Field Biologist and Plant Ecologist and the supplemental services of a Compliance and Monitoring Officer. 3. The disbursement of an amount not to exceed one hundred eighty thousand six hundred dollars ($180,600), available through the 1999 CALFED Grant and a 2001 CALFED grant to the Conservancy, as separate grants for implementation of Spartina treatment and eradication demonstration projects. Grant recipients are the Alameda Flood Control District, the East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Palo Alto, the Marin Conservation Corps, the California State Parks Foundation, the USFWS Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Friends of Corte Madera Creek, and National Audubon Society. Each grant shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to implementing any control and treatment project and prior to disbursement of any funds to the grantee, the grantee shall submit for review and approval of the Executive Officer a site-specific plan, including mitigation measures, and a work program, schedules and budgets, and shall provide evidence that the grantee has obtained all necessary permits and approvals for the project. b. In carrying out any control and treatment project, the grantee shall comply with all applicable mitigation and monitoring measures that are identified in the FEIS/R for the Control Program, that are set forth in the approved site-specific plan, or that are required by any permit or approval for the project.”

Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1. The Conservancy has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIS/R pursuant to its responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The FEIS/R has been completed in compliance with CEQA under the direction and supervision of the Conservancy and reflects the Conservancy’s independent judgment and analysis. 2. The FEIS/R identifies potential significant effects from implementation of the Spartina Control Program in the areas of Hydrology and Geomorphology, Water

3–2 Quality, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Human Health and Safety, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources and Cumulative Impacts. With regard to these impacts, the Conservancy finds as follows: a. As modified by incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/R, the Spartina Control Program or its operating conditions have been changed to avoid, reduce or mitigate all of the possible significant environmental effects of the project, including effects on Hydrology and Geomorphology, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Human, Health and Safety, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources and Cumulative Impacts, described in the accompanying staff report, except for short term effects to the salt-marsh harvest mouse, tidal shrew, California clapper rail and California black rail and short-term impacts to Visual Resources. b. The Spartina Control Program will result in “significant and unavoidable” but short-term effects to the salt-marsh harvest mouse, tidal shrew, California clapper rail and California black rail and short-term impacts to Visual Resources. Specific environmental and other benefits of the project described in the accompanying staff recommendation and detailed in the FEIS/R outweigh and render acceptable these unavoidable adverse environmental effects because the project will result in the long-term environmental benefits of preserving and restoring native habitat for these endangered species and for other plant and animal species that otherwise would be threatened by the continued spread of invasive cordgrass in the Estuary, while avoiding the severe adverse impacts associated with failing to control the continued spread of non-native cordgrass. c. Alternatives to the Spartina Control Program analyzed in the FEIS/R are infeasible in that they do not achieve the project objectives of control and eradication of non-native cordgrass, will result in the same or greater environmental impact and will not produce the same environmental benefit as the Control Program. 3. The environmental effects associated with the demonstration treatment projects proposed for grant funding by the Conservancy and the mitigation measures to reduce or avoid those effects were identified and considered in the program FEIS/R. 4. The Introduced Spartina Project and implementation of the Spartina Control Program remain consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 31160-31164, and with the resolutions, findings and discussion accompanying the Conservancy actions of October 28, 1999, and January 25, 2001, including the requirement of a board authorization for Phase II, Implementation of the Spartina Control Program (attached as Exhibit 2). 5. The proposed authorization is consistent with the Project Selection Criteria and

Guidelines adopted by the Conservancy on January 24, 2001.

6. The Friends of Corte Madera Creek, the National Audubon Society, the Marin Conservation Corps, and the California State Parks Foundation are private nonprofit

3–3 organizations existing under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, and whose purposes are consistent with Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code.”

PROJECT SUMMARY: Background and Overview The Conservancy has managed the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP) since 2000 with the purpose of creating a regionally coordinated effort to control/eradicate invasive cordgrass from the San Francisco Estuary. To that end, and as noted in previous staff recommendations (Exhibit 2), the Conservancy has been working on critical research and related issues and on preparing the environmental documentation required under CEQA to fund and implement Spartina control and treatment projects. The need for immediate implementation of control efforts is best illustrated by two critical facts: 1) Spartina hybrids, the offspring of the invasive alterniflora and native cordgrass parents, spread at a greater than exponential rate; and 2) every marsh restoration project that has been implemented within the south and central San Francisco Estuary in the past 15 years has been invaded by non-native Spartina and its hybrids. Long-term effects of the spread of invasive cordgrass and its robust hybrids, if left uncontrolled, are the following: • Loss of tidal flats and critical foraging habitat for migratory birds that comprise the important San Francisco Estuary Pacific Flyway stopover. • Inability to restore native tidal marsh through existing and future restoration projects. • Filling and clogging of tidal sloughs and flood control channels. • Threat to the survival of the endangered California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse, and endangered marsh plants such as soft bird’s beak and California seablite. • Potential spread of non-native cordgrass to other California estuaries. The Invasive Spartina Project has reached some major milestones, most notably the completion of the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program” (FEIS/R) and the development of a control strategy and of a number of site- specific plans for demonstration projects for the removal of invasive Spartina. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), before the Conservancy can authorize, fund or implement control or treatment activities, the FEIS/R must be reviewed and certified as a complete document that complies with the requirements of CEQA. Once that has occurred, the Control Program can be approved, taking into consideration the FEIS/R, and required permits may be obtained and control work can immediately begin on priority demonstration sites during the last remaining months of the 2003 control season. That season includes selected days that extend from September through

3–4 November to avoid the California clapper rail nesting season and to correspond with low tides. This project involves three separate Conservancy actions. First, it seeks Conservancy consideration and certification of the FEIS/R that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and approval of the Control program in light of the FEIS/R analysis of environmental effects of the Program. Second, assuming that the FEIS/R is certified, the project proposes that the Conservancy authorize the acceptance of additional funds ($50,000) for the ISP Control Program from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by way of augmentation and amendment of an existing grant to the Conservancy that was originally awarded in 1999 (CALFED 1). Third, the project seeks authorization to disburse the augmented CALFED 1 grant funds, along with Conservancy funds in the amount of $650,000 and CALFED funds ($180,600) from CALFED 1 and from a second grant awarded to the Conservancy in 2001 (CALFED 2), all towards implementation of the ISP Control Program. Disbursement of funds for implementation of the Control Program will take two forms: grants to public entities and nonprofit organizations and contracts for equipment and environmental consulting services. A maximum of $180,600 (CALFED 1 and CALFED 2) will be disbursed as separate grants to ten grantees for demonstration control projects. The proposed grantees are: the Alameda Flood Control District, the East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Palo Alto, the Marin Conservation Corps , the California State Parks Foundation, the USFWS Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Friends of Corte Madera Creek, and National Audubon Society. With the exception of Friends of Corte Madera Creek and National Audubon Society, each control project will be implemented on property owned or managed by the grantee. Cumulatively, projects by these grantees will initiate treatment on a total of 135 acres, comprising approximately 25 percent of the Spartina invasion, during the 2003 control season. The demonstration projects are described in more detail, below. A maximum of $700,000 (CALFED 1 and Conservancy funds) will be disbursed under existing and future Conservancy contracts for equipment purchases and for environmental consulting services needed to assist the Conservancy in carrying out the Control Program in compliance with environmental law and regulation. Further detail is provided below. Implementation of the Spartina Control Program Through the FEIS/R, the Conservancy and the USFWS jointly undertook a comprehensive evaluation of proposed Spartina treatment approaches and alternatives, their environmental impacts, and the means to mitigate those impacts. The FEIS/R specifically assessed three separate alternative approaches to addressing invasive Spartina. “Alternative 1,” as described by the FEIS/R, consists of a comprehensive, region-wide eradication program coordinated by the Conservancy and the USFWS, utilizing all available control treatment methods (manual, chemical and mechanical), with the choice of which method to use dependent on the characteristics of a given site. Alternative 2 is a similar regional, coordinated eradication program using all available mechanical and manual treatment methods, but excluding the use of chemical treatment (application of a glyophosate-based herbicide). Alternative 3 is described as an approach

3–5 under which treatment would occur, as it does now, on an ad hoc and limited basis, without any regional coordination by the Conservancy and USFWS. Based on existing, established scientific opinion, the FEIS/R assessment concluded that “Alternative 1,” as modified by incorporation of all mitigation measures, was the environmentally superior alternative under CEQA. In brief, this is because Alternative 1 is expected to achieve control and eradication of invasive Spartina within the San Francisco Bay and Estuary, given the greater effectiveness of appropriate herbicide control and treatment, particularly in areas where the size of infestation is large. Further, even though Alternative 2 may avoid impacts associated with herbicide use, any such impacts would be more than offset by the need for greater reliance on mechanical and manual methods and the more substantial impacts associated with those methods and the need to repeat the use of those methods over a longer term. Moreover, under Alternative 2, there is a greater possibility that, despite treatment, effective control would not be achieved, given the inability of mechanical and manual treatment to keep pace with the spread of invasive Spartina and its hybrids. (Also see discussion under the “Compliance with CEQA” section below) Based on this assessment, staff recommends that, subject to certification of the FEIS/R, the Conservancy act to authorize the implementation of Alternative 1 (as modified by incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/R) as the Spartina Control Program. Implementation of the Control Program, in general, will involve activities undertaken by Conservancy staff and its team of retained environmental consultants to move forward the coordinated region-wide program of control, treatment and eradication of invasive Spartina as described by Alternative 1. In addition, the Control Program will be implemented by the Conservancy through specific authorizations for disbursements of grants for treatment projects and for the funding of equipment and needed environmental consultants, as are proposed by this staff recommendation, and described below Grants for Demonstration Projects This staff recommendation proposes grants to ten organizations for demonstration projects on 12 sites. The proposed demonstration projects for the initial control season in 2003 were chosen as a result of a regionally coordinated, collaborative, and scientifically based process. The Conservancy mapped non-native Spartina and hybrids in partnership with the San Francisco Estuary Institute and the University of California at Davis, and using Bodega Bay laboratories where samples of Spartina alterniflora and hybrids were sent for genetic testing to confirm field identification. Criteria for selecting priority sites, treatment methods, and site-specific plans were developed in collaboration with management entities throughout the Bay and researchers at the Bodega Bay lab. Invaded sites were scrutinized according to weighted criteria such as proximity to open mudflats or existing restoration sites at risk, eradication of outlier populations to restrict spread, presence and absence of California clapper rail, and strength of landowner/management partnerships. Some of the management goals that can be achieved at the selected sites include the following: • Demonstrate both mechanical and chemical control methods to help determine the most cost-effective and environmentally sensitive approach for the 2004-2006 control seasons.

3–6 • Eradicate outliers to restrict spread. • Treat 100% of the invasive Spartina densiflora at Piper Park, Pickleweed Park, and Point Pinole, and 100% of invasive Spartina patens found in the San Francisco Estuary. • Complete treatment at one site by following up work that was previously done. • Eradicate all non-native Spartina on some high priority sites. The highest-ranking demonstration sites (see Exhibit 3 for locations), where these goals for removal of invasive Spartina can be achieved, are proposed for grant funding. Partner grantees are committed and are in the process of obtaining permits to be ready to implement site-specific plans according to the requirements of this project and in compliance with regulatory and mitigation and monitoring measures identified in the FEIS/R. The proposed demonstration projects are described below: 1) Blackie’s Pasture, Marin County (Grantee: National Audubon Society) Blackie’s Pasture is at Blackie’s Creek. The treatment area includes 0.08 acre at the seasonal creek, at its mouth, and along the Bay shoreline. Very steep channel banks are colonized by thick, dense stands of Spartina hybrids. At the mouth and shoreline are hybrid Spartina, invasive Spartina alterniflora and invasive Spartina densiflora. No California clapper rails are found at this site. The goal is to eradicate the invasives through digging, mowing, and covering. 2) Pickleweed Park, City of San Rafael, Marin County (Grantee: Marin Conservation Corps ) The treatment area includes 0.03 acre of predominantly high marsh dominated by pickleweed and cordgrass. The site is moderately infested with invasive Spartina densiflora on the bayward side of the park. Digging, mowing, and hand application of herbicides are planned here. The goal is complete eradication of Spartina densiflora at this site. 3) Corte Madera Creek, City of Corte Madera, Marin County (Grantee: Friends of Corte Madera Creek) This site includes Corte Madera Marsh Reserve (a large bayfront pickleweed-dominated high marsh with stands of invasive Spartina densiflora, and hybrids), College of Marin Ecological Reserve (a tidal marsh with stands of invasive Spartina densiflora), and Piper Park (City park with high marsh with approximately five dozen invasive Spartina densiflora left after manual removal effort in January 2003). California clapper rail is found here and digging, mowing, and covering are planned with the goal of removing approximately 5.07 acres of non-native cordgrass. 4) Alameda Flood Control Channel, Alameda County (Grantee: Alameda Flood Control District) The Alameda Flood Control Channel includes the upper and lower channel on either side of Coyote Hills Slough. The total infestation is on 48 acres and exists as far as five miles from the Bay, mostly on the northern banks. The lower channel represents the densest infestation with large meadows of the hybrid. The California clapper rail is found in the lower channel but not the upper. This site will be used to demonstrate various control

3–7 options, including mechanical and chemical, to determine the best and most effective approach for the 2004-06 control seasons. 5) Emeryville Crescent, Alameda County (Grantee: East Bay Regional Park District) Emeryville Crescent is a shallow fringe marsh that includes some mudflats. Native Spartina foliosa is interspersed with the invasive Spartina alterniflora/hybrids. Invasives cover about 0.8 acres. This is one of the most northerly locations of the hybrids in the East Bay. The goal is to eradicate the invasive Spartina here using backpacks and an amphibious vehicle to spray with herbicides. 6) Oro Loma Marsh, Alameda County (Grantee: East Bay Regional Park District) Oro Loma Marsh is a formerly diked salt pond with many dispersed invasive Spartina hybrid clones which are spreading rapidly. The invasion will likely be similar to the adjacent Cogswell Marsh, a restored marsh dominated by monocultural stands of Spartina hybrids. One and a third acre will be treated this season. This site will also be used to demonstrate mechanical and chemical, including aerial application, treatment options with the ultimate goal to eradicate approximately 70 acres of Spartina hybrids over the 364-acre site next seasons. 7) Palo Alto Baylands, Santa Clara County (Grantee: City of Palo Alto) Palo Alto Baylands is established high marsh dominated by pickleweed with invasive Spartina established at the mouths of the sloughs. The interior is a restored marsh with stands of scattered invasive Spartina. Treatment will occur on .05 acre spread over 10 acres using ground and boat application of herbicides with the goal to eradicate all of the infestation. California clapper rail is found here. 8) Coyote Creek/Mowry Slough, Alameda County and Santa Clara County (Grantee: USFWS Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge) This site is a high marsh pickleweed habitat between Coyote Creek and Newark Slough with Spartina hybrids dispersed amongst wide high marsh and along the channel edges. The goal is to treat approximately 0.1 acre of non-native cordgrass using ground, boat, and targeted aerial application of herbicides, with the goal to eradicate the infestation at this site. California clapper rail is found here. 9) Bair and Greco Islands, San Mateo County (Grantee: USFWS Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge) This is a complex of large sloughs, restored sites (formerly diked marshes), and an island marsh dominated by pickleweed bordered with patches of cordgrass. Infestations of Spartina hybrids range from patchy to dense. The goal is to treat 80 acres using ground, boat, and targeted aerial treatment of herbicides. California clapper rail is found here. 10) Point Pinole Marshes, Contra Costa County (Grantee: East Bay Regional Park District) Whittel marsh is within the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. This historic marsh is dominated by pickleweed and other high marsh vegetation with Spartina densiflora scattered along the eroding bay edges. The marsh on the southern end of Point Pinole is a narrow fringe marsh with 1-2 Spartina alteerniflora/hybrids and a couple of dozen Spartina densiflora clones. The goal is to eradicate the complete infestation of approximately 0.1 acre by ground application of herbicides. California clapper rail is found here.

3–8 11) Southampton Marsh, Contra Costa County (Grantee: California State Parks Foundation) This site, located in Benecia State Recreation Area, is predominantly high marsh dominated by pickleweed with a single major slough and many smaller sloughs. Southampton Marsh contains the only known population of the invasive Spartina patens scattered mostly amongst the lower portion of this marsh and spreading rapidly. The goal is to eradicate the infestation on 0.3 acre using mowing covering and targeted aerial herbicide application. California clapper rail and the endangered plant species soft bird’s beak are found here. 12) Southeast San Francisco Shoreline, San Francisco County (Grantee: California State Parks Foundation) The Southeast San Francisco Shoreline comprises four locations: Pier 98 Heron’s Head, India Basin, Hunters Point Naval Reservation, and Yosemite Channel. The sites are heavily industrialized with remnant or restored tidelands dispersed among mudflats and creek mouths. Spartina hybrids are sparsely scattered, with one site (India Basin) having only one large clone, one with hybrids scattered within riprap (Heron’s Head), and two sites (Hunters Point and Yosemite Channel) with several small and large hybrid clones. The goal is to accomplish full eradication on 1.9 acres at these sites this season, using mowing and targeted herbicide application. No California clapper rails are found at these sites. Each demonstration site will be monitored for control efficacy. Water quality monitoring will also be done at some of these sites Disbursements for Equipment and Environmental Consultants Completion of environmental documentation has been delayed nearly one year due primarily to USFWS workload and need to attend to compliance for other projects that delayed review of the Administrative Draft and Draft EIS/R. Hence, the CALFED grants that provide funding for this project were extended to December 2004 and March 2006 so that the funds budgeted for treatment can be used prior to expiration. In addition, CALFED recently approved a $50,000 augmentation of the existing 1999 CALFED grant in order to fund ongoing project management. The augmented CALFED funds, along with Conservancy funding in the amount of $650,000, are needed to meet the costs of equipment and of Conservancy environmental services consultants for effective operation and management of the Invasive Spartina Project and its Control Program through December 2004. These funds will be used to move the multi-faceted ISP into the implementation phase over the next year and a half. Specifically, Conservancy funds will be used to continue the environmental services of the Project Director, Field Operations Manager, Field Biologist, and Plant Ecologist, and to add the services of a Compliance and Monitoring Officer. As this project moves into implementation of the Control Program, the Compliance and Monitoring Officer will be needed to help track and monitor appropriate regulatory approvals for each site-specific project under the Control Program and ‘tiered’ off of the FEIS/R. The team of environmental professionals will assist the Conservancy in its efforts to effectively and properly implement the Control Program, through establishment of scientific panel oversight, review and preparation of site-specific

3–9 treatment plans, coordination of environmental permitting and compliance, sponsoring and encouraging active and ongoing research, monitoring to assess the efficacy and impacts of the variety of treatment methodologies, and assisting grantees and partners in carrying out treatment and control activities in compliance with CEQA and all other environmental regulations. The Conservancy will also fund required field supplies, equipment, and crews for monitoring. Examples of needed equipment, field supplies, and related costs include the following: • Geographic Positioning Systems units • software • cameras • aerial photographs • water quality lab costs • spray ball • other related items as needed • field-based data input equipment The purchase of a spray ball, a well-tested new technology that allows for aerial spraying that precisely targets individual plants identified for treatment, is expected to further reduce impacts that are already identified as less than significant in the FEIS/R. Prior Conservancy Actions and Funding History: As described in detail in Exhibit 2, previous Staff Recommendations for the Invasive Spartina project, the Conservancy has authorized the following: • Two expenditures of Conservancy funding totaling $486,250. • Acceptance and disbursement of all but implementation funds from two CALFED grants totaling $2,068,661. • Acceptance and disbursement of $101,000 from other non-CALFED grants. Between 2000 and 2003 the Conservancy also expended the following: • $7,000 to hire an environmental consultant to assist in devising a strategy for environmental compliance. • $7,000 to hire a field assistant to assist in the identification and mapping of invasive Spartina. • $14,925 and $20,000, respectively, to help project management while awaiting an executed agreement from CALFED for its second grant to the Conservancy for this project. • $1,750 for printing the Final EIS/R.

PROJECT FINANCING THIS AUTHORIZATIOIN: A. Financing for Consultants, Equipment and Supplies Coastal Conservancy $650,000 1999 CALFED grant augmentation 50,000 Total Project Cost $700,000

3–10

Conservancy funding for this aspect of the project is expected to come from the Conservancy’s FY 03/04 budget appropriation from the “Water Security, Clean Drinking Water Coastal and Beach Protection Fund of 2002” (Proposition 50). These Proposition 50 funds may be used for coastal watershed projects for protection or restoration of land and water resources. The proposed project does just that—its major object is to protect restore the watershed lands of the Bay and bayland resources and habitat by control and eradication of invasive cordgrass.

B. Financing of Grants for Demonstration Projects Grantee Site(s) SCC Grantee match Alameda Flood Alameda Flood $24,000 $20,000 Control District Control Channel East Bay Regional 1.Emeryville Crescent $8,400 $2,000 Park District 2. Oro Loma Marsh $12,000 $8,000 3. Point Pinole $1,800 $2,000 Don Edwards San 1. Bair/Greco Islands $108,000 $80,000 Francisco Bay Nat’l. 2. Coyote/Mowry $1,800 $1,200 Wildlife Refuge Slough Area (USFWS) City of Palo Alto Palo Alto Baylands $1,800 $500 California State 1. Southeast San $12,000 $6,500 Parks Foundation Francisco Shoreline 2. Southampton Marsh $1,800 $6,500 Marin Conservation Corps Pickleweed Park $1,800 $800 Friends of Corte Corte Madera Creek $3,000 $3,000 Madera Creek Tiburon Audubon Blackie’s Pasture $3,000 $1,500 TOTAL $180,600 $87,300 GRAND TOTAL COSTS – ALL PROJECTS: $267,900

The total Conservancy (SCC) contribution of $180,600 for the proposed grants is from funds remaining under 1999 and 2001 CALFED grants to the Conservancy. Under the terms of the CALFED grants, the Conservancy may use these funds for Spartina treatment and control projects.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S ENABLING LEGISLATION: As described in previous staff recommendations (Exhibit 2) and associated Conservancy resolutions, the ISP and implementation of the Control Program serve to carry out the objectives for the San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program mandated by Chapter 4.5 of the Conservancy’s enabling legislation (Public Resources Code Sections 31160-31164).

3–11 The project is authorized by Section 31162 of the Public Resources Code, which allows the Conservancy to undertake projects and award grants in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area to public and private agencies and organizations. The project is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31162(a), since both the ISP and its Control Program will serve to protect and restore tidal marshes, which are natural habitats of regional importance.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL(S) & OBJECTIVE(S): San Francisco Bay Program Goal Matrix under Regional Projects identifies the Spartina Control project as a program of regional significance under the Strategic Plan. Consistent with Goal 5, Objective C of the Conservancy’s Strategic Plan, the proposed project will serve to implement 12 projects to eradicate non-native invasive species that threaten native coastal habitats. If left uncontrolled, non-native invasive Spartina will potentially spread up and down the coast to other California estuaries. Consistent with Goal 10, Objective A, the proposed project will initiate implementation of the Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program to prevent up to 30,000 acres of marsh and mudflats from being invaded and potentially covered by invasive Spartina and hybrids and to preserve and restore natural habitats in the San Francisco baylands.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA & GUIDELINES: The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy's Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines adopted January 24, 2001, in the following respects:

Required Criteria 1. Promotion of the Conservancy’s statutory programs and purposes: See the “Consistency with Conservancy’s Enabling Legislation” section above. 2. Consistency with purposes of the funding source: See the “Project Financing” section above. 3. Support of the public: This project is supported by regulatory agencies, public agencies and special districts, nonprofit organizations, and scientists that work to protect and restore wetlands. This broad support is demonstrated by the numerous Letters of Support as part of the original October 28, 1999 Staff Recommendation. Additionally, a number of agencies and environmental organizations have expressed support in comments received on the Draft EIS/R (see Chapter 10 of the FEIS/R). 4. Location: This project is located in the nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties to benefit the restoration of the San Francisco baylands. 5. Need: San Francisco Bay has lost up to 93 percent of its original tidal marsh habitat. Fifty-five percent of the threatened and endangered species of the Bay Area are found in the tidal marshes. Left uncontrolled, introduced Spartina threatens to convert a

3–12 significant portion of the open mudflats and tidal marshes to a monoculture which will reduce habitat for the species endemic to the area. 6. Greater-than-local interest: Introduced Spartina threatens to move up the delta, and down the coast to southern California. In the San Francisco Bay, introduced Spartina threatens to displace listed state and federal special status species, such as the endangered California clapper rail, California black rail, and the salt marsh harvest mouse.

Additional Criteria 7. Urgency: Many experts believe that if the spread of introduced Spartina is not controlled within the next few years, the greater than exponential spread of the plants and extensive hybridization with the native Spartina foliosa will preclude any chance for successful control in the future. If the Conservancy and its partners can address the problem appropriately in the short-term, long-term maintenance expenses can be avoided. 8. Leverage: The Conservancy’s $650,000 contribution will be used to leverage up to $1,793,661 of CALFED funds and $ 50,000 as an augmentation to the first $275,000 CALFED grant for this project Additionally, grantees will contribute $87,000 in staff time, equipment and expertise. See the “Project Financing” section above. 9. Innovation: Many of the projects proposed for treatment to remove invasive Spartina involve use of a spray ball, a new technology that precisely targets herbicides to specific plants to avoid impacts to surrounding plants and animals. Also, the goal of some of the treatment projects is to establish the most effective and cost-effective combination of treatment techniques for application in subsequent treatment seasons. 10. Readiness: Grantees have worked in close collaboration with the Conservancy to prepare site-specific plans and are poised to implement them as soon as funds are available for expenditure. 11. Cooperation: The grantees will contribute a total of $87,000 in staff services, hours, and equipment

CONSISTENCY WITH SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN: The Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan, Section entitled “Marshes and Mudflats,” Policy 3 (c) (page 9) that states: “the quality of existing marshes should be improved by appropriate measures whenever possible.” The main purpose of this project is to remove invasive Spartina to improve the long-term quality of existing marsh habitat in the baylands of the San Francisco Estuary.

COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., hereafter CEQA) requires consideration of potential environmental effects of California public agency actions and approvals, unless exempt. The National

3–13 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the same for federal agency action and approvals. Accordingly, Conservancy and USFWS staff jointly prepared, through the consulting firm of Grassetti Environmental Consulting (and other ISP environmental consultants), the “Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program” (FEIS/R), attached as Exhibit 1, to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with implementation of the Spartina Control Program. For purposes of the FEIS/R, the Control Program consists of a comprehensive, region- wide eradication program coordinated by the Conservancy and the USFWS, as co-lead agencies, and other partner agencies, utilizing all available control treatment methods (manual, chemical and mechanical), with the choice of which method to use dependent on the characteristics of a given site and the nature of infestation. This is referred to as “Alternative 1” by the FEIS/R. As described previously in this staff recommendation, the FEIS/R also assesses the environmental impacts of two other treatment approaches: “Alternative 2” which is the same as Alternative 1, except that the use of chemical treatment is excluded; and “Alternative 3,” which is a “no project” alternative that assumes that no future region-wide, coordinated treatment program occurs. The FEIS/R is a programmatic Environmental Impact Report (Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq., hereafter “Guidelines”) in that it analyzes the potential effects of implementing treatment methods for a regional program, rather than the impacts of a single individual project. This program-level EIS/R identifies mitigation measures that will be applied to reduce or eliminate impacts at treatment locations. The Conservancy will use the FEIS/R to evaluate the Control Program for approval. The Conservancy, along with its state and local partner agencies, will also use the FEIS/R as a basis for “tiered” CEQA review and approval of individual treatment projects under the Control Program, which may or may not require further formal environmental documentation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21094; Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15168). A Notice of Preparation for the EIS/R was distributed on April 6, 2001, followed by a scoping meeting on April 24, 2001. The Draft EIS/R was completed and made available for pubic review and comment and a Notice of Completion (NOC) was delivered with copies of the Draft EIS/R to the State Clearinghouse on April 17, 2003. In connection with the public review process, the Conservancy provided copies of the Draft to over 180 organizations, including federal, state, and local agencies, legislators, environmental organizations, private landowners and associations, organizations affiliated with research, protection, or restoration activities related to the San Francisco Bay and Estuary and invasive species, and other organizations expressing an interest. In addition, four public meetings were held at various locations in the San Francisco Bay Area in April and May 2003 to provide information about the Control Program and the Draft EIS/R. Sixteen comment letters were received during the 45-day public review period, which ended as of June 4, 2003. The comment letters and responses to the comments are incorporated in the FEIS/R as Chapter 10. Copies of the responses to the comments have

3–14 been provided to state and local trustee and responsible agencies as of September 4, 2003, as required by CEQA Section 21092.5 The FEIS/R was completed in September 2003. Copies have been made available on request at the offices of the Conservancy and on the ISP internet website: wwwspartina.org. Additional copies will be made available at the Conservancy meeting. The FEIS/R and all underlying records and documentation are to be maintained at the offices of the Conservancy.

Significant Effects Reduced To Less Than Significant Levels By Mitigation The FEIS/R provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures to address the possible impacts associated with implementation of the Control Program. The FEIS/R identified possible significant effects of the project in the areas of Hydrology and Geomorphology, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Human Health and Safety, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources and Cumulative Impacts. With the exception of short-term significant impacts to the salt-marsh harvest mouse, tidal shrew, Californian clapper rail and California black rail and short-term impacts to visual resources, each of these potentially significant effects can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of mitigation measures recognized by the FEIS/R, as briefly outlined in “Summary Of Significant Effects That Are Reduced To Less Than Significant Levels By Mitigation Measures Identified By The FEIS/R” attached as Exhibit 4 to this staff recommendation and incorporated by this reference. (A detailed and complete discussion is found in the FEIS/R, Chapters 3 and 10, in particular.) Since the potential significant effects of the Control Program can be mitigated by the imposition of the measures outlined above and described in detail in the FEIS/R, staff recommends that in approving the Spartina Control Program the Conservancy incorporate all FEIS/R mitigation measures. Consistent with the FEIS/R, staff also recommends that the Conservancy find that, as changed by incorporation of the mitigation measures, the Control Program or its operating conditions have been changed to avoid, reduce or mitigate the possible significant environmental effects on Hydrology and Geomorphology, Water Quality, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Noise, Human, Health and Safety, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources and Cumulative Impacts, except for short term effects to the salt-marsh harvest mouse, tidal shrew, Californian clapper rail and California black rail and short-term impacts to visual resources. CEQA Section 21801; Guidelines Section 15092 (a).

Unavoidable Significant Effects Of The Control Program The FEIS/R analysis concluded that despite mitigation several effects of the Control Program potentially could not be reduced to less than significant levels. These are described below: Effects of Treatment On Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and Tidal Marsh Shrew: The possible effects of treatment activities would be limited to indirect effects primarily through marsh habitat degradation from vehicle access, crushing of mice under tracked vehicles, and destruction of high tide flood refugia. Because of the severe endangerment of southern subspecies of salt marsh harvest mouse any potential risk of “take” is significant.

3–15 Mitigation measures which will limit these impacts include: minimize use of vehicles in potential habitat; restrict vehicle access to shortest, flagged pathways; restrict excavation equipment in marshes to mats or covers; use optimal combinations of treatment to minimize repeat entry; and schedule work soon after natural mass-mortality events caused by extreme high tides. Despite these required measures, potential “take” of salt marsh harvest mouse, through harassment, excessive habitat degradation, or other means, may occur despite avoidance and minimization measures. In that event, appropriate compensatory mitigation may include construction of pickleweed marshes to add habitat or provision of tidegates to choke tidal circulation to optimal levels needed to maintain habitat quality. Ultimately, any compensatory mitigation will be determined in consultation on a site-specific basis with the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game (DF&G). Effects of Treatment on California Clapper Rail and California Black Rail: Because the clapper rail has been reported to nest in young tall stands of non-native Atlantic cordgrass and to seek cover under the higher stands of that cordgrass, eradication in areas where the non-native and hybrids dominate and have large stands would result in significant impacts to individual rails and the local population. In any areas in which clapper rails and non-native cordgrass of any type are located, treatment activities may also disturb them, risk nest destruction or remove habitat. These impacts can be minimized by incorporation of identified mitigation measures, but nonetheless remain significant (FEIS/R 3.3-40 to 3.3-41). In the event of unavoidable significant impacts in any specific site, despite the avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation will be determined in consultation USFWS and DF&G. In the limited areas in which black rails are now most frequently located (northern San Pablo Bay and Suisin Marsh), salt-meadow cordgrass eradication activities (include crew movement) may temporarily disturb rails, and degrade habitat where eradication is near tidal creek banks. The impacts may potentially be unavoidable and significant, despite implementation of avoidance and minimization measures similar to those related to the clapper rail (FEIS/R, pp. 3.3-41 to 3-3.42). Effects of Treatment on Visual Resources: The removal of stands of non-native cordgrass in areas where there is public access and visibility will unalterably change the views available to the public by replacing green vegetation with restored, unvegetated marsh or, during the process of herbicide eradication, with dead or dying non-native cordgrass. A treatment site’s appearance may also change due to geomorphic alterations arising after treatment. These impacts are short-term, but can only be reduced and not fully minimized or eliminated by the proposed measure of placing educational signage at such sites informing the public of the reasons for the changed vista (FEIS/R pp. 3.7-9).

Statement Of Overriding Considerations The Guidelines (Section 15093) require the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the project, a Statement of Overriding Consideration may be adopted and the project approved, despite its adverse environmental effects. A Statement of Overriding

3–16 Considerations consists of the agency’s statement, in writing, about its specific reasons to support its approval, based on substantial evidence in the record, including the EIR and/or other information. The overall environmental benefits of the Control Program as detailed in the FEIS/R, warrant the Conservancy’s decision to approve the project even though not all of the environmental effects of the project are fully mitigated. First, unavoidable significant impacts to the four identified biological species (salt harvest mouse, tidal shrew, and rails) are limited and short-term, arising during and only as a result of treatment. Second, with implementation of the Control Program it is anticipated that over the long term, as the non-native cordgrass is removed, the native cordgrass and other native vegetation will return to the areas from which they have been displaced, thereby creating additional species habitat. In addition, existing native habitat, that would otherwise be overrun, will be preserved. Third, after successful completion of the Control Program, restoration projects planned for the Estuary that will add further native habitat may then move forward without the risk of providing fertile ground for more extensive invasion of non- native Spartina and its hybrids. Fourth, in the absence of the coordinated and comprehensive Control Program, the FEIS/R concludes, based on best available science, that the spread of non-native cordgrass will expand, eventually creating an altered Estuary environment that will be less suitable for these four species and lead to more severe long-term impacts on them and on other species dependent on marsh and tidal areas. Finally, other severe long-term impacts that are associated with failing to control the spread of non-native cordgrass will be avoided, including increased accretion of the Bay, the potential for increased flooding, and the further change from mudflats, marsh, and open water to areas vegetated with non-native plants. The unavoidable, significant impact on visual resources is likewise a short-term one. The change in vistas occurs only with and during treatment and the change is one-time. When balanced against the environmental benefits of the removal of an aggressive non-native plant that displaces native plants and impacts biological resources, there is little question that environmental concerns are best served by implementing the Control Program. For these reasons, the Conservancy staff recommends that Conservancy find that the social, economic and other benefits or considerations of the Control Program outweigh the unmitigated or unavoidable environmental effects of the project, thereby warranting its approval.

Consideration Of Project Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to the location of the project. If a lead agency finds that any of the project’s significant environmental impacts cannot be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation measures, the agency must, before approving the project, make written findings that the project alternatives are infeasible. CEQA Section 21081; Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3). The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. While three scenarios were extensively evaluated, the FEIS/R also considered four other possible alternative treatment scenarios but rejected them as either unable to achieve the project

3–17 objectives of controlling and eradicating non-native cordgrass, lacking scientific support, or insufficiently flexible in approach as to allow for effective treatment with the least amount of environmental impact. As discussed previously and as detailed in the FEIS/R, the Control Program is the most likely to achieve the project objectives with the least impact on the environment. Alternative 2, treatment without the use of herbicide, would result in all of the same significant, unavoidable impacts to biological species and to visual resources associated with the Control Program. Moreover, impacts under Alternative 2 to the endangered species are likely to be longer in term and more severe, given the fact that Alternative 2, by definition, relies exclusively on the methods—mechanical and manual—that take longer to achieve effective control and result in the greatest habitat destruction and the most disturbance or potential “take” by access. In addition, the best prediction based on available science is that Alternative 2 is less likely to succeed in effective eradication and control, since it may not be able to keep pace with the ongoing spread of non-native cordgrass. Alternative 3 presents an even more gloomy outlook: while it may avoid some short-term impacts, it provides few long-term benefits and in the end is likely to result in the failure of control of the non-native species and the severe consequences that are expected to be associated, including loss of species, habitat destruction, and significant geomorphic changes to the Estuary, as detailed above and in the FEIS/R. Since neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 will achieve the project objectives, and since both will result in greater environmental impact and will not produce the same environmental benefit, staff recommends that the Conservancy find that these alternatives are infeasible.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Under CEQA. whenever measures are required and adopted in order to mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of an approved project, the agency must also prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring or reporting program designed to ensure compliance with the required mitigation during project implementation (CEQA Section 21081.6). Staff has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project, attached as Attachment K to the FEIS/R. The proposed Conservancy resolution for this project serves to adopt the program.

Environmental Documentation – Grants for Demonstration Projects A subsequent activity that follows under a program that has been assessed pursuant to CEQA must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If the agency proposing the later activity finds that its effects and required mitigation to reduce those effects were already identified and considered under the program EIR, the activity can be approved with no further environmental documentation [Guidelines Section 15168(c)]. The Guidelines suggest the use of a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. Each of the proposed demonstration projects has a prepared site-specific plan, describing the site and identifying the precise treatment activities proposed. In addition, each has been assessed by use of a checklist to determine whether the effects of those activities

3–18 and the mitigation required have been considered by the FEIS/R. This documentation is attached as Exhibit 5. In each case, the conclusion is that the program FEIS/R did consider the effects associated with the demonstration project and there are no new mitigation measures required. Conservancy staff recommends that the Conservancy adopt a finding to that effect.

Finally, upon Conservancy certification of the FEIS/R and approval of the proposed project, Conservancy staff will prepare and file a Notice of Determination.

3–19 EXHIBIT 1

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program

Distributed to Board Members only; available for public review at Conservancy office and at the Board Meeting.

3–20 EXHIBIT 2

October 28, 1999 and January 25, 2001 Staff Recommendations

3–21

COASTAL CONSERVANCY

Project Summary October 28, 1999

INTRODUCED SPARTINA ERADICATION PHASE I–STAGE I

File No. 99-054 Project Managers: Maxene Spellman/Nadine Hitchcock

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to: 1) accept $250,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and $59,900 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to support this project and (2) disburse an amount not to exceed $305,900 toward implementation of Phase I–Stage I of the Introduced Spartina Eradication Project.

LOCATION: The baylands of the nine counties that bound the San Francisco Bay and the lower Delta in Sacramento County (Exhibit 1)

PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy

ESTIMATED COST: PHASE I – Stage I: CALFED (USFWS) $120,000 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 48,900 Coastal Conservancy (HCF) 137,000 Total Project Costs—Phase I–Stage I $305,900

PHASE I – Stage II, Future Authorization: CALFED (USFWS) $130,000 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 11,000 In-Kind Contributions (equipment, facilities, personnel) 394,500 Total Project Costs—Phase I–Stage II $535,500

TOTAL PROJECT COST $841,400

PROJECT SUMMARY: This project uses a regional approach to address perhaps the most serious adverse impacts ever to threaten the San Francisco baylands and associated habitats. Of all the introduced plant species to the region, the non-native cordgrasses have the potential to significantly transform the

3–23 mudflats and marshes throughout the region, greatly reducing habitat for native and special status species, and creating flood hazards. Many experts believe that if the spread of introduced Spartina is not controlled within the next few years, the battle will be lost. Spartina, which exists on about 1,000 acres of San Francisco bayland, will spread into approximately 40,000 acres of wetland and 29,000 acres of tidal mudflats. This process has occurred as close by as Humboldt Bay and as far away as Puget Sound in Washington, and in China, New Zealand, and Britain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the spread of introduced Spartina to be a serious threat to the recovery and survival of several threatened and endangered species that reside in the baylands. They have considered the need to prohibit new tidal restoration projects until the introduced Spartina populations can be safely managed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Bay Regional Parks District, Alameda County Flood Control Department, and other public landowners have undertaken individual control efforts, resulting in costly duplication of efforts that include separate project funding, environmental compliance and permitting, research, testing of control methods, and public outreach. Re- invasion has occurred in controlled areas because of non- controlled neighboring infestations. Team Spartina, an ad hoc association comprised of over a dozen public agencies and institutions that are collaborating to develop a regional approach to the threats posed by introduced Spartina, requested the Coastal Conservancy to administer this grant. The Team identified the Conservancy as the only entity that has a regional jurisdiction and extensive involvement in tidal restoration projects. The recommended Conservancy disbursement, Phase I–Stage I, would result in development of a regionally coordinated program with the primary objectives of preventing further spread of the introduced Spartina to the North Bay, Delta, and South Bay and to newly developed restoration projects, where it is most opportunistic. Phase I– Stage II involves using $130,000 of CALFED funds to continue to experiment and apply the most effective methods for eradication/control; and using $11,000 of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation funds to initiate control of invasive Spartina in the South Bay. The management structure and plan for the intensive eradication efforts developed in Phase I are needed for Phase II to eliminate or maintain introduced Spartina populations to a non-threatening level. Phase I is expected to take just over 1 year, and Phase II is expected to take 2-3 years. CALFED has

3–24 indicated that, if successful, this project will result in additional CALFED funds for Phase II. As proposed for Phase I–Stage I, the Conservancy will assist Team Spartina members by providing required matching funds and by disbursing funds to three public agencies and hiring two contractors. Phase I–Stage I of the Introduced Spartina Eradication Project (ISEP) provides for the development of:

♦ a Mapping, Monitoring, and Introduced Spartina Assessment Plan; ♦ an Introduced Spartina Eradication Management and Implementation Plan; ♦ development and implementation of a public outreach and education program; ♦ research to refine control and eradication techniques; and ♦ preparation of environmental review and permit documents for eradication/control work that is proposed for Phase I– Stage II and Phase II of this project. The environmental review documents will be completed by the Conservancy prior to disbursement of funds for Phase I–Stage II. The focus of Stage II will be limited eradication in the South Bay, and continued outreach and assistance to landowners wherever colonies of introduced Spartina continue to be targeted. The objective of Phase II will be to control/eradicate invasive species of Spartina to a manageable level throughout the Bay. This project implements a priority recommendation of the San Francisco Estuary Project's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (1994) which is to develop species-specific management plans to control or eliminate undesirable non- indigenous species. It further implements a recommendation of the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals (Goals) report (1999) to develop a systematic and coordinated program of introduced Spartina control prior to undertaking extensive tidal restoration.

3–25 3–26 REVISED

COASTAL CONSERVANCY

Staff Recommendation October 28, 1999

INTRODUCED SPARTINA ERADICATION PHASE I–STAGE I

File No. 99-054 Project Managers: Maxene Spellman/Nadine Hitchcock

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The resolution for this project has been revised as follows:

Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following Resolution pursuant to Sections 31160-31164 and 31104 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes the acceptance of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and fifty-nine thousand nine hundred dollars ($59,900) from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; and disbursement of an amount not to exceed $305,900 in the form of grants to the San Francisco Estuary Institute, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the University of California at Davis, and for services necessary for completion of Phase I–Stage I of the Introduced Spartina Eradication Project.”

Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: 1. The proposed authorization is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31160 et seq. regarding the Conservancy’s mandate to address the resource and recreational goals of the San Francisco Bay Area; 2. The proposed authorization is consistent with the Interim Project Selection Criteria and Guidelines adopted by the Conservancy on May 27, 1999; 3. Acceptance of the $250,000 grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the $59,900 grant from the National

3–27 Fish and Wildlife Foundation is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31104, which authorizes the Coastal Conservancy to accept funds from public and private sources; and 4. The San Francisco Estuary Institute is a “nonprofit organization” under Public Resources Code Section 31013.”

STAFF DISCUSSION: Project Description: Non-native Spartina was first brought into the San Francisco Bay tidal wetlands in the 1970s, and has rapidly invaded marshes where it competes with native plants. The robust Spartina alterniflora, for example, grows taller that native Spartina allowing it to withstand greater inundation of water. Its spread could convert valuable mudflats and small tidal channels to dense marsh of low habitat value for many species, including the protected California clapper rail. Introduced Spartina also partially fills flood control channels to reduce flow capacity. Introduced Spartina is causing significant ecological and economic impacts. This project proposes to significantly reduce or eliminate the introduced Spartina throughout the Bay, with the primary objectives of preventing further spread into the North Bay and Delta and to newly restored tidal marshes, where it undermines restoration objectives. This authorization will provide for these implementation steps on a regional basis of Phase I–Stage I of the Introduced Spartina Eradication Project (ISEP):

♦ Monitor and map existing and new populations of introduced Spartina.

♦ Identify landowners on whose land it is determined that eradication or control of introduced Spartina is needed.

♦ Research effective methods for eradication.

♦ Create a public education and outreach program.

♦ Prepare permits and environmental review documents (CEQA) for eradication/control work that is proposed for Phase I–Stage II. These efforts will result in preparation of the Mapping, Monitoring and Introduced Spartina Assessment Plan (Assessment Plan) and the Introduced Spartina Eradication Management and Implementation Plan (Management Plan).

3–28 The Conservancy will enter into two contracts and provide two grants for the preparation of these plans. The Conservancy will contract out a project coordinator position to oversee Phase I– Stage I, identify landowners, conduct public outreach, establish rapid response control strategies, and oversee the preparation of environmental compliance documents. The Conservancy will enter into a separate contract with a field operations coordinator who will identify and monitor colonies of invasive Spartina, make extensive landowner contacts, and coordinate with the research and mapping teams (see below). The Conservancy also will fund the purchase of equipment needed for field operations such as a Global Positioning System (GPS). A GPS can quickly record the precise location of invasive plants as they are found in the field. This authorization will also provide for a grant to the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) for mapping, monitoring and development of a Web site for public outreach. SFEI will use its Bay Area EcoAtlas for base maps, produce aerial photography, and will update its existing invasive plant ‘point’ map. SFEI also will design protocols for monitoring targeted areas. The Conservancy will provide two research grants under this disbursement. One will go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Weed Control Lab to study existing and new control and eradication techniques in order to find what works best. Among the methods to be studied will be application of registered herbicides, mowing, burning, covering, and digging. Successful methods applied in the State of Washington will also be evaluated for appropriate use in San Francisco Bay. The other research grant will be given to U.C. Davis to study the hybrids of Spartina alterniflora and native Spartina to determine their dispersal and ability to compete with native plant species. Team Spartina members will provide in-kind contributions, and will convene biannually to advise, review reports, and assess the progress of the project. Phase I–Stage II and Phase II will require separate board authorizations. In addition to refining the Assessment and Management Plans, Phase I–Stage II will involve a pilot project to eradicate invasive Spartina on 75 acres in the South Bay. Phase I–Stage II will also focus on reaching out to landowners in order to educate and offer assistance for control/eradication of targeted invasive Spartina. The permits and environmental review completed in Stage I will be utilized in Stage II to begin implementing eradication on targeted sites. Stage II will involve eradication/control work by enlisting not

3–29 only private landowners but also public agencies that routinely apply methods to control invasive species (e.g., the East Bay Regional Park District and California Department of Fish and Game).

Project Financing: PHASE I – Stage I: CALFED (USFWS) $120,000 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 48,900 Coastal Conservancy (HCF) 137,000 Total Project Costs—Phase I–Stage I $305,900

PHASE I – Stage II, Future Authorization: CALFED (USFWS) $130,000 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 11,000 In-Kind Contributions (equipment, facilities, personnel) 394,500 Total Project Costs—Phase I–Stage II $535,500

TOTAL PROJECT COST $841,400

Approval of this staff recommendation would authorize the Conservancy to accept $250,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the administrator of the CALFED funds, and $59,900 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and to disburse $305,900 in the form of three grants and two contracts for Phase I–Stage I of a project for a regionally coordinated invasive species eradication and control program for introduced cordgrasses (Spartina). Disbursement of the remaining project funds will require a separate board authorization.

Site Description: Phase I–Stage I of the ISEP, including strategic planning, mapping, monitoring, experimentation, research for eradication of introduced Spartina, and environmental review, will be conducted throughout the baylands of the nine counties that bound San Francisco Bay and the lower Delta in Sacramento County.

Project History: Several species of non-native cordgrasses were introduced in the southern San Francisco Bay in the 1970s for use in tidal restoration projects. The introduced cordgrasses rapidly invaded intertidal habitats where they compete with native vegetation and can potentially transform open-mud flats into dense monocultures of tall grass. Spartina alterniflora has spread to approximately 1,000 acres, including most recently in Richardson Bay, Marin County. Other species present in the bay

3–30 can potentially pose a similar problem as they have in Humboldt Bay and other parts of the world where entire regions have been transformed by these species. Also, recent research has indicated that non-native species of Spartina hybridize with the native, Spartina foliosa, complicating control efforts. Significant adverse impacts are expected to occur from the spread of introduced Spartina and the hybrids:

♦ degradation of habitat for four federal and state endangered species;

♦ physical alteration of the wetlands due to greater sediment accretion and stabilization;

♦ loss of migratory shorebird feeding habitat, including unvegetated mudflats;

♦ clogging of navigable waterways;

♦ constriction of flood control channels; and

♦ increased need for mosquito abatement measures. In 1998, over 20 agency and institutional interests formed the Spartina Team to formulate a regional strategy for eradicating introduced Spartina from San Francisco Bay. The recommended strategy is believed to have a high probability of success providing implementation begins this year. The Conservancy applied for and was awarded a $250,000 CALFED Ecosystem Restoration grant for the Introduced Spartina Eradication Project. The required 50 percent matching funds ($137,000) is from the Conservancy's Habitat Conservation Fund. The Conservancy also applied for and was awarded a $59,900 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant for the mapping, monitoring, and eradication of introduced Spartina on 75 acres in the South Bay. These two grants will be split between Stages I and II of the first Phase of the project. Nearly $400,000 of in-kind contributions is included from seven agencies or institutions. These include the East Bay Regional Park District, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, U.C. Davis, the USDA Agricultural Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Alameda County Flood Control.

PROJECT SUPPORT: This project is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and over 20 other agencies and institutions represented by Team Spartina (see Exhibit 3). Exhibit 2 lists Team Spartina members.

3–31 CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY’S ENABLING LEGISLATION: The project is consistent with Section 31162 of the Public Resources Code which authorizes the Conservancy to undertake projects and award grants in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area to public and private agencies and organizations. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31162(a), the project site is located within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, and will help achieve the goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program (Sections 31160 et seq.) by protecting and restoring tidal marshes, which are natural habitats that are of regional importance. The Conservancy’s acceptance of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant of $250,000 and a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant of $59,900 is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31104, which authorizes the Conservancy to accept grants and other financial support from public and private sources. In authorizing a grant to the SFEI, a nonprofit organization defined in Section 31013, this project is consistent with Section 31116(a), which authorizes the Conservancy to make grants to nonprofit organizations.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY’S PROGRAM GUIDELINES: The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy’s interim Program Guidelines adopted May 27, 1999, in the following respects:

Required Criteria Promotion of the Conservancy’s Statutory Programs and Purposes: The project will help the Conservancy carry out purposes of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, Chapter 4.5, by protecting and restoring bayland and associated habitats in the nine county bay region. Consistency with Purposes of the Funding Source: The Conservancy’s matching funds are anticipated to be provided from the Conservancy’s 99/00 Habitat Conservation Fund, which may be used for restoration and/or enhancement of wetlands. Support from the Public: The project is supported by regulatory agencies, public agencies and special districts, nonprofit organizations, and scientists that work to protect and restore wetlands. It is also supported by flood control districts

3–32 that anticipate adverse impacts from introduced Spartina clogging drainage ways. Need: San Francisco Bay has lost up to 93 percent of its original tidal marsh habitat. Fifty-five percent of the threatened and endangered species of the Bay Area are found in the tidal marshes. Introduced Spartina threatens to convert a significant portion of the open mudflats and tidal marshes to a monoculture which will reduce habitat for the species endemic to the area.

Additional Criteria Urgency: Many experts believe that if the spread of introduced Spartina is not controlled within the next few years, the battle will be lost. Spartina will spread into approximately 40,000 acres of wetland and 29,000 acres of tidal mudflats. This process has occurred as close by as Humboldt Bay and as far away as Puget Sound in Washington, and in China, New Zealand, and Britain. Greater-than-local Interest: Introduced Spartina threatens to move up the delta, and down the coast to southern California. In the San Francisco Bay, introduced Spartina threatens to displace listed state and federal special status species, such as the endangered California clapper rail, California black rail, and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Leverage: The Conservancy’s $137,000 contribution will be used to leverage $250,000 of CALFED funds. In-kind contributions of personnel and equipment will total $394,500 from the following project participants: East Bay Regional Park District, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, U.C. Davis, the USDA Agricultural Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and Alameda County Flood Control. Project Support: Strong support for this project is demonstrated by the many contributing agencies. In addition to agencies identified under “Leverage” and “Cooperation,” the following organizations also will participate: The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the Alameda County Public Works Department, the Bay Area County Commissioners, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Alameda Department of Agriculture, and the Benicia State Recreation Area. Also, over 100 scientists who assisted in the preparation of the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals report, in which the eradication of introduced Spartina is given high priority, support this project.

3–33 Cooperation: The Conservancy will enter into agreements with two public agencies, a nonprofit organization, and two independent contractors to complete Phase I–Stage I: The San Francisco Estuary Institute will conduct the mapping, monitoring, and assessment; a project coordinator will cooperate with a field operations coordinator to identify targeted sites, educate landowners, and complete environmental review; and the USDA Aquatic Weed Lab and U.C. Davis will conduct research, and will coordinate with the project coordinator and the field operations coordinator. Phase I–Stage II will consist of a coordinated effort and in-kind services by seven local, state, and federal agencies, and one nonprofit organization. Additional public and private agencies will be added to this list as project implementation expands in Phase II.

CONSISTENCY WITH SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN: The proposed project is consistent with the Bay Conservation Development Commission’s San Francisco Bay Plan policies on Fish and Wildlife (page 9): “The benefits of fish and wildlife in the Bay should be insured for present and future generations of Californians. Therefore, to the greatest extent feasible, the remaining marshes and mudflats around the Bay . . . should be maintained” “Specific habitats that are needed to prevent the extinction of any species, or to maintain or increase any species that would provide substantial public benefits, should be protected.”

COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: The mapping, monitoring, and assessment aspects of Phase I– Stage I of the project constitute feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions which are statutorily exempt from CEQA’s EIR or Negative Declaration requirements under 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15262. The research activities of Phase I are categorically exempt from CEQA’s EIR and Negative Declaration requirements because it will consist of “basic data collection, research, experimental management and resource evaluation activities which [will] not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.” (14 California Code Regulations, Section 15306)

3–34 COASTAL CONSERVANCY

Staff Recommendation January 25, 2001

CONSENT ITEMS

File Nos. 00-115, 99-054

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following Resolution pursuant to Sections 31000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code:

“The State Coastal Conservancy hereby: a. [omitted] b. 1. Disbursement of an amount not to exceed $200,000 in Conservancy funds toward completion of Phase I of the Introduced Spartina Project, which includes mapping, monitoring, research, inter-agency coordination, public outreach, and geographical expansion of the Project; 2. Acceptance of a grant of up to $1,793,661 from CALFED for this project; and 3. Disbursement of up to $1,366,661 of the CALFED grant toward completion of Phase I and site-specific pre-implementation work for Phase II over the next two years. The anticipated grantees and contractors are listed in Exhibit 4 to the accompanying Project Synopsis b., which Exhibit is incorporated herein."

Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal Conservancy hereby finds that: a. [omitted] b. Acceptance and disbursement of funds for the Introduced Spartina Project is consistent with the resolution, findings and discussion accompanying the Conservancy action of October 28, 1999, attached as

3–35 Exhibit 2 to the accompanying current Project Synopsis b."

3–36 INTRODUCED SPARTINA PROJECT 2001 CALFED GRANT

3–37 COASTAL CONSERVANCY

Project Synopsis b. January 25, 2001

INTRODUCED SPARTINA PROJECT 2001 CALFED GRANT

File No. 99-054 Project Manager: Maxene Spellman

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to: 1) disburse an amount not to exceed $200,000 in Conservancy funds toward completion of Phase I of the Introduced Spartina Project, which includes mapping, monitoring, research, inter-agency coordination, public outreach, and geographical expansion of the Project; 2) accept a grant of up to $1,793,661 from CALFED for this project; and 3) disburse up to $1,366,661 of the CALFED grant toward completion of Phase I and site specific pre-implementation work for Phase II over the next two years. The anticipated grantees and contractors are listed in Exhibit 4, which is incorporated herein.

LOCATION: The baylands of the nine counties that bound the San Francisco Bay and lower Delta in Sacramento County.

PROGRAM CATEGORY: San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy

ESTIMATED COST: Coastal Conservancy $ 200,000 CALFED 1,793,661 TOTAL COST $1,973,661

Since 1999 the introduced Spartina Project has been supported by $1,026,650 in grants and other funding, including $286,250 from the Conservancy. It is anticipated that the Conservancy will receive CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program 2001 funds in the amount of $1,793,661 for continued work on this project as confirmed in the November 28, 2000 letter from the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (Exhibit 1). The $200,000 in Conservancy funding currently proposed is expected to come from the San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program (Bay Program) through a FY00-01 appropriation from the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Proposition 12).

3–38

PROJECT SUMMARY: The Conservancy first authorized the disbursement of $137,000 of Conservancy funds (HCF) on October 28, 1999 (Exhibit 2) for Phase I of the Introduced Spartina Project (ISP), and $149,250 of Conservancy funds (Bay Program) on June 22, 2000 for the preparation of a joint CALFED/Conservancy EIR/EIS (Exhibit 3). The proposed authorization would fund continued Phase I work, including mapping and monitoring for the project. The proposed authorization would also allow the Conservancy to geographically expand the ISP by augmenting scientific research and public outreach to increase chances for a successful prevention of the further spread of the introduced Spartina in the San Francisco Bay intertidal zone and delta. The Conservancy’s contribution of $200,000 would match a grant of up to $1,793,660 that the Conservancy is expected to receive from CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program for an expanded effort to build a bay-wide infrastructure to significantly reduce existing populations, and detect and prevent future Spartina invasions. This CALFED grant will fund the completion of Phase I, site-specific pre- implementation work for Phase II, and future phases of the greater ISP. The spread of introduced Spartina presents perhaps the most serious danger to ever threaten the existence of the San Francisco baylands. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for the Tidal Marshes of Central and Northern California ranks eradication of the exotic Spartina alterniflora as a number 1 recovery action needed to prevent listed species’ forseeable slide towards extinction. The threat of regional loss of tidal flat habitat and the recovery of endangered species is emphasized as the reason for the highest possible ranking. The Conservancy is coordinating a regional effort to reverse the spread of the introduced cordgrass through Team Spartina, an ad hoc association of agencies and institutions.

Funding History: The Conservancy has previously authorized two expenditures of Conservancy funding as follows: • $137,000 to match $250,000 from CALFED and $59,000 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) for Phase I to establish a regionally coordinated effort; and • $149,250 to match $25,000 of existing CALFED funding, $5,750 of existing NFWF funding, and $20,000 of new funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the preparation of environmental documentation.

3–39 The Conservancy has also expended $7,000 to hire an environmental consultant to assist in devising a strategy for environmental compliance, and $7,000 to hire a field assistant to assist in the identification and mapping of invasive Spartina.

Project Status: • The Conservancy has entered into agreements with the FWS and NFWF to establish a region-wide ISP according to approved budgets for project coordination, public outreach, research, mapping, monitoring and planning; • The Conservancy has completed interagency agreements with the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct research for the best possible control techniques, monitoring techniques, genetic testing and continued research on hybridization. UC Davis has completed extensive genetic sampling and some research to better identify the distribution and impact of hybrid Spartina on native populations. USDA is conducting experimentation with three herbicides and a new application technique in which herbicides would be applied using a wiper blade. • Project and field coordinators have accomplished the following: 1. Conducted surveys and field visits to assist agencies, including FWS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and multiple municipalities, to identify and assess their invasive Spartina populations; 2. Together with the San Francisco Estuary Institute, developed a suitable mapping protocol for ISP and are conducting ongoing vegetation surveys to map the invasive Spartina distribution and net acreage of invasive Spartina populations in the South Bay, Central Bay, and portions of the North Bay; 3. Produced a public outreach brochure which is included as Exhibit 5; 4. Under the direction of the Conservancy, communicated the urgency and importance of controlling introduced Spartina to a long list of nonprofit organizations, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders; and 5. Applied to CALFED, on behalf of the Conservancy, for a grant of 1.9 million dollars from the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program to continue and expand

3–40 ISP. Staff anticipates receiving the grant in the amount of $1,793,661 (Exhibit 1); • Hired a field assistant to perform site visits, collect samples, and provide technical and logistical assistance and species identification; • Hired an environmental consultant to assess alternative CEQA compliance strategies for implementation of the ISP; and • Hired an environmental consulting firm to produce a joint EIR/EIS for ISP. The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study are completed. The anticipated completion date for the EIR/EIS is July 31, 2001.

Need for Additional Funding: The long-term goal of ISP is to eradicate invasive Spartina in the San Francisco Bay intertidal zone. Resource managers and scientists familiar with the invasive Spartina issues anticipate that this will be achieved in approximately ten years. The new grant expected from CALFED, with matching funds from the Conservancy, will support efforts toward that end. It will permit the completion of planning, ISP Phase I, as well as continued monitoring, research and public outreach during implementation of control work, ISP Phase II. These efforts will build on and expand ISP’s accomplishments in 1999-2000. Funds will be available to provide ongoing support for ISP staff including the hiring of a second field coordinator and a public outreach coordinator. Funding will provide for focused research projects by UC Davis, the USDA and the Point Reyes Bird Observatory. For example, it is not known what is the best protocol to restore appropriate vegetation for marshes where large amounts of hybrid populations are removed; nor is the potential threat to shorebirds fully understood. Additional research on these issues will result in the best possible recommendations of priority sites targeted for control efforts. Funds will also be used to conduct site-specific pre- implementation work for Phases I and II. In Benecia, for example, site-specific work included searching for and identifying introduced Spartina on several hundred acres, conducting separate site visits to coordinate with USFWS staff, who advised on the presence of endangered species, and coordinating site visits with the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the landowner, and USDA staff to discuss the best control techniques. Also, the field coordinator spent a day

3–41 using Global Positioning System to enter new data on aerial photographs to create the first map ever done on the site. A portion of the existing and anticipated CALFED funds will be made available for implementation of ISP Phase II, which will assist agencies and landowners in the control of invasive Spartina on their property. However, no funds will be disbursed for control/eradication work for Phase II implementation until environmental review is completed and a separate board authorization is obtained.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S ENABLING LEGISLATION: The project is consistent with Section 31162 of the Public Resources Code which authorizes the Conservancy to undertake projects and award grants in the nine-county San Francisco Bay area to public and private agencies and organizations. Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 31162(a), the project site is located within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, and will help achieve the goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program (Sections 31160 et seq.) by protecting and restoring tidal marshes, which are natural habitats of regional importance. This project, the regional effort to reduce and control the introduced Spartina, will help achieve the goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program by assisting in the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural habitats.

CONSISTENCY WITH CONSERVANCY'S PROGRAM GUIDELINES: The proposed project is consistent with the Conservancy's interim Program Guidelines adopted May 27, 1999, in the following respects:

Required Criteria Promotion of the Conservancy’s Statutory Programs and Purposes: The project will help the Conservancy carry out purposes of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, Chapter 4.5, by protecting and restoring bayland and associated habitats in the nine county bay region. Consistency with Purposes of the Funding Source: ISP will implement the goals of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program, consistent with the appropriation of Proposition 12 funds. This project will have no effect on air quality.

3–42 Support from the Public: This project is supported by regulatory agencies, public agencies and special districts, nonprofit organizations, and scientists that work to protect and restore wetlands. This broad support is demonstrated by the numerous Letters of Support as part of the original October 28, 1999 Staff Recommendation. Need: San Francisco Bay has lost up to 93 percent of its original tidal marsh habitat. Fifty-five percent of the threatened and endangered species of the Bay Area are found in the tidal marshes. Introduced Spartina threatens to convert a significant portion of the open mudflats and tidal marshes to a monoculture which will reduce habitat for the species endemic to the area.

Additional Criteria Urgency: Many experts believe that if the spread of introduced Spartina is not controlled within the next few years, the battle will be lost. Greater-than-local Interest: Introduced Spartina threatens to move up the delta, and down the coast to southern California. In the San Francisco Bay, introduced Spartina threatens to displace listed state and federal special status species, such as the endangered California clapper rail, California black rail, and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Leverage: The Conservancy’s $200,000 contribution will be used to leverage up to $1,793,661 of CALFED funds.

COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: The mapping, monitoring, assessment, and planning aspects of Phases I and II of the project constitute feasibility and planning studies for possible future actions which are statutorily exempt from CEQA’s environmental review requirements under 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15262. In addition, the mapping, monitoring, and research activities of Phases I and II are categorically exempt under 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15306 because they consist of “basic data collection, research, experimental management and resource evaluation activities which [will] not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.”

3–43 EXHIBIT 4

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT ARE REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED BY THE FEIS/R

1. Hydrology and Geomorphology a. Increased Erosion or Deposition of Sediments at Sites of Eradication Increased erosion following removal of invasive Spartina will be mitigated by use of temporary physical erosion controls or, in mud flats, armoring with heavier natural material (shell fragments). Erosive effects on tidal creeks will be limited by monitoring after removal of non-native cordgrass and revegetation with sprigs of native cordgrass once adequate channel dimensions are restored by erosion. b. Erosion or Topographic Change of Marsh and Mudflat by Vehicles Impacts from vehicles used in eradication will be reduced to less than significant levels by minimizing their use, using boat access where significant erosion or sedimentation are likely and using mats on marsh surfaces when feasible. Where the use of mats is not possible, trips will be minimized and paths marked for least impact. c. Remobilization of Sand in Cordgrass–Stabilized Beaches Loss of sand beach after eradication will be mitigated though the use of one or both of the two following techniques, as appropriate to the specific conditions: 1) sand nourishment (artificial placement of suitably textured sand); or 2) repair or replacement of rock slope protection or other existing erosion protection structures. d. Potential Spread of Invasive Cordgrass via Sediment Disposal Impacts from treatment using removal of sediments (e.g., dredging) will be reduced to less than significant by disposal of sediments in upland areas or at depth in diked, hypersaline non-tidal sites destined for tidal marsh restoration.

2. Water Quality a. Degradation of Water Quality Due to Herbicide Application The potential for water quality degradation will be reduced to less than significant through: use of methods and timing that minimize application directly to water (apply directly on plants, at low or receding tides); application by licensed applicators and in compliance with labeling; conformity with NPDES permit requirements and an approved monitoring plan, including toxicological studies; and utilizing adaptive management strategies to refine herbicide solution and application techniques and decrease impacts.

3–43 b. Herbicide Spills Precautions to limit or reduce the potential for herbicide spills are required as mitigation, including active supervision by licensed applicators, storage of herbicides in accordance with approved spill prevention and containment plan; and confinement of on-site mixing and filling operations to areas bermed or otherwise protected to minimize spread or dispersion of spilled herbicide or surfactants into surface waters.

c. Fuel or Petroleum Spills These potential impacts will be minimized by restricting fueling and servicing of vehicles and equipment and storage of fuel to offsite locations, except for emergencies and fueling of hand-held gas-powered equipment which may be fueled in the field using precautions to minimize or avoid fuel spills within the marsh, and by implementing other, detailed best management practices that will be specified in project-specific Waste Discharge Requirements. d. Contaminant Remobilization In connection with treatment involving dredging or excavation of bay mud, the following measures will be used to mitigate impacts: before treatment, a preliminary assessment for potential contamination shall be undertaken; if the assessment determines a potential for historic sediment contamination, sediment sampling and analysis will be implemented; if contaminants are present at levels of possible concern, an alternative treatment method (that does not disturb sediment) will be implemented, or the project shall apply to the Regional Water Board for site-specific Waste Discharge Requirements.

3. Biological Resources a. Effects of Treatment on Tidal Marsh Plant Communities Affected by Salt-meadow, Chilean and English Cordgrasses Impacts can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the imposition of a variety of mitigation measures. Vehicle and foot accessways into marshes will be minimized and optimal combinations of treatment and retreatment will be utilized as on means to reduce repeat entry. Seasonal timing of herbicide application will be adjusted to limit impacts to non-target plants. Adjacent vegetation may be buffered against herbicide spray drift by use of one of several methods, such as fabric covers or bay mud suspensions applied to plants. Post-application irrigation of oversprayed non-target vegetation will also be used. Standard best management practices for herbicide application (e.g., field crew training, clear marking of spray boundaries in the field, ecological supervision during field operations, restricting operation to optimal low- wind times, nontoxic spray markers, etc.) shall be used to minimize overspray and drift. Disposal of cut, mown or shredded cordgrasses will be restricted to methods designed to prevent dispersal. Revegetation will be undertaken as appropriate and needed to prevent invasion by other nonnative plants.

3–44 b. Effects of Treatment on Tidal Marsh Plant Communities Affected by Atlantic Smooth Cordgrass and Its Hybrids To reduce and minimize these effects, measures similar to those described under 3.a., above, will be used, including reducing foot and vehicle access, using the most effective combinations of treatment, limiting equipment impact though the use of mats, removal of excavated cordgrass and sediment, buffering non-target vegetation against herbicide drift or overspray, use of methods other than helicopter application of herbicide where feasible and less environmentally damaging, and removal of non- native cordgrass prior to seed set or maturation to prevent dispersal of seed. c. Effects of Treatment on Submerged Aquatic Plant Communities Avoiding transport of herbicide spray solutions near salt marsh pans and removing large deposits of mown cordgrass will curtail any possible effects on aquatic plants.

d. Effects of Treatment on Special Status Plants in Tidal Marshes Effects on sensitive plants will be reduced by: surveys timed to determine location of sensitive species and recording of GPS location data, avoidance of identified plant locations during treatment, use of on-site botanical supervision whenever sensitive plants occur in treatment sites, refraining from burning in such sites and use of overspray and drift barriers and post-application irrigation of non-target plants to limit impact of herbicide use. After treatment, revegetation will be undertaken as appropriate and needed to prevent reinvasion or invasion by other nonnative plants.

e. General Effects of Treatment on Birds and Waterfowl Measures which will curtail effects on birds and waterfowl include: refrain from treatment within 1,000 feet of mudflats during peak fall and spring Pacific Flyway stopovers; use optimal combinations of treatment to minimize activities near sensitive shorebird roosts or preferred foraging areas; discourage presence of shorebirds in herbicide treatment sites by early entry as mudflats emerge from high tide and by hazing, immediately remediate any spilled herbicide and keep birds away by hazing until completed, use of targeted helicopter application of herbicide by “spray ball” as preferred treatment option unless within 1,000 feet of active major roosting or foraging sites, in which case, helicopter spraying is not to be used.

f. Effects of Treatment on Resident Harbor Seal Colonies To avoid such effects, access to marshes will be curtailed to specified paths and limited to within 1000 feet of haul outs or, when pups are present, to 2000 feet or any greater distance that elicits vigilance behavior and helicopter use will be limited to no closer than 2000 feet. Further mitigation includes consultation with marine mammal experts to determine seasonal variation in sensitivity to disturbance. Use of optimal treatment combinations to reduce access and precautions related to the handling and remediation of spills of herbicide solution.

3–45 g. Effects of Treatment on Tidal Marsh Song Sparrow Subspecies and Salt Marsh Yellowthroat In areas known to support these birds, mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels will include the adaptation and use of the protocols for minimization and avoidance of clapper rails (Appendix G to FEIS/R), emphasizing pre-project surveys (call detection), minimization of marsh disturbance, and avoidance of occupied habitat during the breeding season. h. Effects of Treatment on Western Snowy Plovers and California Least Terns Potential effects will be minimized or eliminated by pretreatment surveying for potential snowy plover nests near levee roads and by restricting dredging and excavation until after least terns have migrated out or during middle to lower tidal stages that allow navigation of barge and crane operations, while exposing the maximum extent of cordgrass above standing tides. i. Effects of Treatment on Raptors To avoid or reduce potential effects, application of herbicide solution by helicopter will be minimized in mid- and upper-marsh plains during raptor nesting season and, if used, will maintain a buffer of at least 500 feet from any nest identified by a pre- application survey performed by a qualified biologist. j. Effects of Treatment on Anadromous Fish To reduce impacts to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures will be required: dredging of intertidal channels limited to tidal stages when target areas are emerged above water level and during seasons when winter- and spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead migration times minimize risk of exposure; when using impoundments, to avoid trapping fish, water intakes will have intake elevations limited to tides above mean high water or fish screens will be installed on any new tidegates; herbicide use will be restricted during near channels and mudflats during migration periods of winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead and will be minimized by using other pre-herbicide treatment methods; and any spill of herbicide or solution will be immediately and effectively remediated. k. Effects of Treatment on Estuarine Fish in Shallow Intertidal Mudflats and Channels In infested North Bay marshes, in order to mitigate impacts, impoundment techniques will be eliminated, spray drift near tidal creeks will be minimized and intertidal excavation or dredging in tidal creeks will be restricted to tidal stages when target areas are emerged above water level. l. Effects of Treatment on Mosquito Production The effects related to enhanced mosquito production are reduced and eliminated by monitoring for and backfilling or enhancing drainage of any vehicle or foot access depressions created in marsh areas and, when using impoundment as a treatment

3–46 method, creating impoundment areas of a sufficient size and depth to minimize mosquito production.

4. Air Quality

a. Dust Emissions Potential effects will be mitigated by using dust control measures where visible dust clouds are possible or where sensitive receptors (i.e., houses, schools, hospitals) within 500 feet of the treatment site.

b. Smoke and Ash Emissions The following mitigation will reduce this effect to less than significant: for prescribed burns, as required, obtained a burn permit and/or notify the BAAQMD and the Agriculture Commissioner prior to initiating the burn. c. Herbicide Effects on Air Quality To minimize the effects of herbicide application: for areas targeted for aerial herbicide application within 0.5 mile of sensitive receptors, prepare and implement an herbicide drift management plan. The plan will include the following elements: coordination with the County Agricultural Commissioner; identification and pre- treatment notification of nearby sensitive receptors; identification of areas that have non-target vegetation; modifications to equipment and application techniques to reduce drift; compilation of proper application instructions and warnings; avoidance of spraying when winds exceed 10 miles per hour when surface-based inversions are present; establishment of buffer zones to avoid affecting sensitive receptors; restrictions on public access during treatment activities and for a period (of up to 12 hours) after application; consideration of ground application near buffer zones and areas adjacent to sensitive receptors when prevailing conditions would increase potential for drift; and provision for temporary termination if conditions change and present drift potential at sensitive receptor sites.

5. Noise a. Disturbance of Sensitive Receptors The following mitigation measures reduce this effect to less than significant: the use of equipment and machinery in compliance with all applicable local noise regulation and otherwise limited to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. within 500 feet of sensitive receptors; and no use of helicopters within 1,500 feet of sensitive receptors.

3–47 6. Human Health and Safety

a. Worker Injury from Accidents – Manual and Mechanical Treatment Potential effects related to worker injury will be mitigated by requiring pre-treatment worker safety training and the use of appropriate safety procedures and equipment, including hearing protection. b. Worker Health Effects – Herbicide Application In order to eliminate or reduce these effects, health and safety procedures and equipment, as described on the herbicide or surfactant label, will be used by workers and only certified or licensed herbicide applicators will mix and apply herbicide. c. Health Effects to the Public – Herbicide Application Public health effects can be avoided or reduced to less than significant by: 1) managing application for herbicide drift and terminating application when winds are in excess of 10 miles per hour, when inversion conditions exist or when wind could carry spray drift into inhabited areas; 2) notifying the public of treatment by posting conspicuous signs at or near any publicly accessible treatment sites 24 hours prior to treatment, warning of the pending treatment and harmful effects of the herbicide and advising “no entry” for eight hours after treatment; 3) avoiding the use of herbicides in high use areas where the public is likely to contact water or vegetation within 24 hours prior to weekends and public holidays or closing such areas to the public for 24 hours before and after treatment; 4) providing advance, one-week notification of future herbicide treatment by posting and by separate notice to schools and hospitals within 500 feet of any treatment site; and 5) prohibiting aerial spraying within 0.25 mile of a school, hospital, or other sensitive receptor location.

d. Health Effects to Workers or the Public – Accidents Associated with Treatment These risks are mitigated by: use of appropriate health and safety procedures and equipment; preparation of a contingency plan including a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) plan and Participation of the local fire department during prescribed burning activities.

7. Cultural Resources

a. Disturbance or Destruction of Cultural Resources from Access and Treatment The following mitigation measure will reduce the potential effects of ground- disturbing control methods access (other than manual removal and smothering): a qualified archaeologist will conduct a Phase I site record and literature search; if the location is identified as a prehistoric or historic cultural resource site, excavations will be monitored; and if significant cultural resources are identified at the site, an alternative treatment method must be used or, alternatively, if the resource is determined significant and impacts cannot be avoided, then the lead Federal agency shall consult with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to identify

3–48 appropriate mitigation measures. For sites involving manual removal or smothering of invasive cordgrass and not requiring ground-disturbing access, if prehistoric or historic cultural resources are discovered, the project sponsor will suspend work for appropriate investigation and, if the find is an important resource, will fund and allow recovery of an archaeological sample or implement avoidance measures. b. Loss of Cultural Resources from Erosion In order to reduce these effects and in addition to previously identified mitigation measures, treatment will be designed to avoid damaging potentially significant cultural resource sites through early screening to detect sensitive prehistoric marsh remnants or near-surface buried prehistoric marsh surfaces, selection of treatment methods that minimize potential damage or, if not feasible, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in 7.b., above.

8. Cumulative Impacts a. Effects of Wetland Restoration Projects on Spread of Non-Native Cordgrass The potential of restoration projects to accelerate the spread the non-native Spartina will be mitigated as follows: the Conservancy and USFWS will review each proposed wetland restoration project to assure proper sequencing with cordgrass treatment so as to prevent the increased spread of invasive cordgrass to newly restored wetlands and will encourage all other agencies with permitting authority to do the same. b. Cumulative Damage to Marsh Plain Vegetation To the extent that mosquito abatement activity and projects under the Control Program will overlap, they may cumulatively impact marsh plain vegetation. The potential for cumulative impacts may be minimized by implementing joint planning and field coordination to avoid or minimize cumulative impacts.

3–49 EXHIBIT 5

Demonstration Projects: Impact Evaluation and Mitigation Distributed to Board Members only; available for public review at Conservancy office and at the Board Meeting.

3–50 INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT – PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL PROGRAM

Agenda Item 5. September 25, 2003

EXHIBIT 1

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project: Spartina Control Program

INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT – PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL PROGRAM

Agenda Item 5. September 25, 2003

EXHIBIT 5

Demonstration Projects: Impact Evaluation and Mitigation

REVISED

COASTAL CONSERVANCY

Staff Recommendation September 25, 2003

INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT – PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROL PROGRAM

File No. 99-054 Project Manager: Maxene Spellman

RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS:

Paragraph 3 of the recommended resolution for this project is revised to read as follows:

3. The disbursement of an amount not to exceed one hundred eighty thousand six hundred dollars ($180,600), available through the 1999 CALFED Grant and a 2001 CALFED grant to the Conservancy, as separate grants for implementation of Spartina treatment and eradication demonstration projects. Grant recipients are the Alameda Flood Control District, the East Bay Regional Park District, the City of Palo Alto, the Marin Conservation Corps, the California State Parks Foundation, the USFWS Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Friends of Corte Madera Creek, and National Audubon Society. Each grant shall be subject to the following conditions: Subsections a., b. and c. of Paragraph 3 and the remainder of the resolution remain unchanged.

Paragraph 6 of the recommended findings for this project is revised to read as follows: 6. The Friends of Corte Madera Creek, the National Audubon Society, the Marin Conservation Corps, and the California State Parks Foundation are private nonprofit organizations existing under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, and whose purposes are consistent with Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code.”

The text of the staff recommendation is revised so that all references to the “City of San Rafael” as a proposed grantee are changed to the “Marin Conservation Corps” and all references to the “California Department of Parks and Recreation” as a proposed grantee are changed to the “California State Parks Foundation.”

Invasive Spartina Control Plan

For

Coyote Creek & Mowry Slough Area Alameda County

Including:

Coyote Creek & Mowry Slough

Dumbarton/Audubon Marsh

Newark Slough

La Riviere Marsh

# # # # # #

# # # # # #

TSN: ISP-2004-5

2004 Control Season

1 Table of Contents Table of Contents...... 2 Introduction...... 2 Project Partners ...... 3 General Information...... 3 Site Description...... 3 Infestation Description...... 4 Ecological Threat and Reason for Prioritization...... 4 Endangered Species Issues ...... 4 Treatment Plan...... 6 Management Objectives and Efficacy Criteria...... 6 Treatment Method(s) ...... 7 2004 Treatment Strategy...... 7 Access and Timing...... 8 Equipment and Materials ...... 8 Personnel and Contract Requirements...... 8 Site Safety and Spill Prevention ...... 8 Permitting and Environmental Compliance...... 8 Required Permits and Authorizations ...... 8 Mitigation and Conservation Measures ...... 9 Compliance Monitoring and Reporting ...... 9 Research...... 9 Quality Assurance and Control...... 9 Attachment 1. Site Maps and Photographs...... 10 Attachment 2. Work Program...... 12 Attachment 3. Environmental Compliance...... 13 Attachment 4. Site Safety and Spill Prevention...... 14 Attachment 5. Research Plan ...... 15

Introduction This is a plan for control of non-native, invasive Spartina on a stretch of South Bay shoreline between Coyote Creek and Newark Slough. The plan was prepared by consultants of the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), in collaboration with the Project Partners listed below. The plan includes background and site information, site-specific goals, treatment strategy, and a description of potential impacts of treatment. The plan also specifies actions or practices (“mitigations”) necessary to implement the plan with the least possible adverse environmental impact, in compliance with the ISP’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and all applicable regulatory requirements. The plan will be implemented by the Project Partners, with assistance from the ISP, beginning in late summer of 2004. This control plan was developed based on the concepts of “Integrated Vegetation Management,” whereby a broad range of site-specific factors were considered to determine the optimal combination of treatment methods (manual, mechanical, and

2 chemical) and strategies for use at the site. The control plan may be modified over time as new scientific information becomes available, and based on site-specific conditions.

Project Partners Property Owner: US Fish & Wildlife Service, San Francisco Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge (Joy Albertson (510) 792-0222 x31) DENWR owns and/or manages nearby properties that have been invaded by non-native Spartina. They also own and manage many thousands of un-invaded tidal marsh, and tens-of-thousands of acres of currently diked areas (salt ponds) that are slated for restoration to tidal marsh in the coming decades – all of which are at risk of future invasion. The DENWR has implemented a control program on their properties over the last several years. Other Partners: Santa Clara Valley Water District (Lisa Porchella (o)408.265.2407 x2741], (c)408.497.0480) SCVWD has developed a Spartina Control Program to help identify and eradicate non- native Spartina infestations occurring within their jurisdiction. SCVWD has helped the ISP and other partners in the past with access and coordination, and will be a continuing partner in control efforts in this area.

General Information

Site Description The area to be treated under this plan encompasses approximately 1,500 acres of marshlands of the San Francisco Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge that lie between Coyote Creek and the Dumbarton Bridge.. This land is owned and managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. The site is surrounded entirely by marsh and salt ponds, and there is very little public access, except for a portion of the Bay Trail along part of Newark Slough. Based on site access, endangered species, and other site-specific factors, the ISP and the USFWS have delineated the following sub-areas: Sub-Area 5a. Coyote Creek & Mowry Slough. Included in this area are Coyote Creek itself, Mowry Slough, and the bayfront from Calaveras Point north to the outlet of Newark Slough (see Attachment 1: Site Maps and Photos). The marshes in this area range from thin strips of Spartina and pickleweed marshes between mudflats and salt pond levees, to wide, high-marsh pickleweed habitat along the banks of the larger sloughs Sub-Area 5b. Dumbarton/Audubon Marshes. This Sub-Area is located to the south of the Dumbarton Bridge and includes the areas known as Hetch-Hetchy Marsh, Railroad Marsh, Barge Canal and Plummer Creek as well as the Dumbarton and Audubon Marshes. This Sub-Area encompasses some 753 acres of marshland which contain open marsh plains, eroding marsh

3 edges, stream channels and other habitats. An abandoned rail line bisects the larger portion of this Sub-Area. Sub-Area 5c. Newark Slough. This Sub-Area encompasses that area of Newark Slough that runs from roughly Jarvis Landing and Marsh Road upstream to the outlet of the Slough into the Bay at the confluence with Plummer Creek. The area consists of a wide levee-bound channel in the upstream portion and above Plummer Creek traverses more open marsh habitat. The total estimated acreage of this Sub-Area is 190 acres. Sub-Area 5d. La Riviere Marsh/Mayhews Landing. This Sub-area lies to the east of Marshlands Road near the headquarters of the DENWR. Together, these marshes encompass 153 acres of restored marshland habitat.

Infestation Description Sub-Area 5a. Coyote Creek & Mowry Slough. Spartina alterniflora/hybrids are dispersed amongst wide high marsh pickleweed habitat and along the channel sides of Newark and Mowry Sloughs and Coyote Creek. An estimate of total net acres of Spartina alterniflora/hybrids within this area is roughly 0.15 acres. Sub-Area 5b. Dumbarton/Audubon Marsh: This area of marsh contains roughly 8 acres of Spartina within a restored and remnant marsh habitat. Sub-Area 5c. Newark Slough: Only 1 net acre of non-native Spartina has infested this section of the Site. Treatment in this area will be along the channel banks within the levee system. Sub-Area 5d. La Riviere Marsh: A total of 25 acres of non-native Spartina infest this large restored marsh complex.

Ecological Threat and Reason for Prioritization The area encompassed by this plan is on the southeastern-most portion of San Francisco Bay. This area is relatively free of non-native invasive Spartina, and as such, is in danger of being further colonized by S. alterniflora/hybrids due to the proximity of large stands of S. alterniflora/hybrids acting as propagule sources (Alameda Flood Control Channel, Bair/Greco Island Complex). The area included within this plan contains large sections of marshland suitable for the endangered California Clapper Rail and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse that would be threatened with the unabated expansion of S. alterniflora/hybrids within these marshes. The project partners on this site have been working closely with the ISP to survey and document the extent of the S. alterniflora/hybrid infestation in the area, and will continue to provide assistance in any control effort conducted there. The existence of good working relationships with these stakeholders enables the efficient mobilization of resources in the area aimed at control of the S. alterniflora/hybrids

Endangered Species Issues The ISP PEIS/R identified 43 sensitive species of plants and animals that could occur within the waters and adjacent lands of the San Francisco Estuary (PEIS/R Appendix F). Of these 43 species, 12 were determined to be at sufficient risk of direct, indirect, or

4 cumulative adverse impacts to require site-specific evaluation and potential mitigation*. The conditions at this site were evaluated to determine the potential presence of these 12 species, and it was concluded that California clapper rail (CLRA), salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM), and harbor seal are or may be present within the proposed treatment area; no other special status species are expected to be present at this site. Potential impacts and required mitigations for these species are summarized below. Additional impacts and mitigation information is included in Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance. California clapper rail. Surveys for CLRA have been conducted for this site at several different times in the past. It is well known and henceforth assumed that the areas within the scope of this plan provide nesting and foraging habitat for CLRAs. Unless otherwise authorized by the U.S. FWS, control activities on this site must not occur during clapper rail nesting season (February 1 to September 1), and all Best Management Practices and mitigations identified in the ISP EIS/R must be implemented. This site is located on the southern end of San Francisco Bay, and in the heart of CLRA habitat. There is relatively little non-native, invasive Spartina yet established in this portion of the estuary, though environmental conditions and suitable habitat for invasion are abundant. The continued unabated expansion of the Spartina alterniflora/hybrids within this area of native S. foliosa meadows threatens some of the last intact marshlands in the south bay with significant degradation. Areas to be treated to control Spartina alterniflora/hybrids within this area are dispersed throughout a wide area, and each is relatively small in area. They currently exist scattered throughout a much larger native S. foliosa matrix. All control work done on the infested areas of the marsh would leave undisturbed large, adjacent areas for refuge for any CLRA affected by treatment. Additionally, treatment via herbicide will allow the structural component of the invasive Spartina intact long enough for any CLRA inhabiting invasive clonal ‘islands’ within the larger native matrix time to relocate to adjacent suitable habitat. Mitigations will follow protocols identified in the ISP’s PEIS/R and in the USFWS’ Programmatic Biological Opinion Conservation measures as follows. Additional mitigations on site are identified in Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance. • Perform work only during Sept 1 thru Feb 1 to avoid CLRA breading season (BIO-5.1;CM-18) • For work within the Clapper Rail breeding season, call counts will be performed in the early spring according to FWS protocols (CM-18) • Provide CLRA Field biologist supervision (BIO-5.1) • Assure that field personnel are trained in general CLRA biology and CLRA identification and call detection (BIO-5.1) • Report any CLRA activity immediately to ISP Field Supervisor and in post- treatment report (BIO-5.1) Salt marsh harvest mouse. There is suitable SMHM habitat throughout the proposed treatment areas, and SMHM presence will be assumed for all operations. Appropriate

* Potentially affected species include soft bird’s-beak, salt marsh harvest mouse, harbor seals, California black and clapper rails, salt marsh common yellowthroat, some tidal marsh song sparrow subspecies, western snowy plovers, California least terns, Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Sacramento splittail

5 mitigations will be employed for all impacts identified in the PEIS/R and USFWS BO Conservation Measures. • Use shortest possible access route through any pickleweed habitat. Flag areas of repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM-15) • Use protective mats or other covering over pickleweed in areas or repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM-15) Harbor seal. There are several haul-out sites for resident harbor seals within the geographic area of this site. The area proposed for Spartina treatment under this plan lies at the southern end of the Estuary, and at the southern end of known and suitable harbor seal habitat and haul out sites. The continued expansion of non-native, invasive Spartina in the area threatens to invade the areas harbor seals use for haul-outs. Treatment activities within these areas should the non-native, invasive Spartina become established will result in unnecessary disturbance of these sites, and possible abandonment of the sites by seals. Harbor seals are extremely wary and will flush from haul-out sites when approached by humans on foot, by boat or by other means from as close as 300 meters. There are currently no Spartina alterniflora/hybrid clones adjacent to harbor seal haul-out sites within the geographic scope of this plan. All treatment areas within the geographic scope of this Plan are outside of the 300-meter buffer indicated above. Nevertheless, the following mitigations will be employed during treatment activities as per the ISP’s PEISR/S and the FWS’ Programmatic Biological Opinion Conservation Measures (Please refer to Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance: • Minimize vehicle and foot access to marsh within 1000 feet of haul out sites (BIO-4.2) • Avoid approaching haul out sites within 2000 feet (or any distance that elicits vigilance behavior) when pups are present (BIO-4.2) • Follow ISP spill prevention plan or equivalent (BIO-42; CM-17)

Treatment Plan

Management Objectives and Efficacy Criteria 2004 Season: This site has only limited amounts of establishing Spartina alterniflora/hybrids within its boundaries. Therefore, for the 2004 Treatment Season, the goal would be to treat, at least once, all existing clones of S. alterniflora/hybrids found there. 2005 Season: For the 2005 Season, all areas treated during the 2004 season would be monitored for resprouting plants and re-treated, and all of those areas remaining uncontrolled after the 2004 treatment season would be treated. 2006 Season: In conjunction with both the USFWS, DENWR and SCVWD the ISAP would implement a monitoring and maintenance plan that would aim to identify all resprouting or newly establishing non-native, invasive Spartina, and target those areas for immediate control.

6 Treatment Method(s) Treatment methods within each Sub-Area will be determined by site conditions and access issues.

Method Acres Sub-Area 5a • Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Backpack Sprayer and Boat-Mounted spray apparatus .15

Sub-Area 5b • Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Backpack Sprayer and Boat-Mounted spray apparatus 8

Sub-Area 5c • Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Truck Mounted Sprayer 1

Sub-Area 5d • Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Truck Mounted Sprayer and Boat-Mounted spray apparatus 25

Total Spartina Acres Treated 34.15 During subsequent years, these methods will be refined and the most efficacious method will ultimately be used to treat the entire site.

2004 Treatment Strategy Sub-Area 5a: Following the end of the CLRA breeding season (August 31st), crews would access the site via levees along Plummer Creek to gain access to the bayfront marsh between Newark Slough and Mowry Slough. Staff equipped with backpack sprayers would access the clones within this stretch of marsh on foot to treat the plants. These crews could also use a conventional spray truck equipped with retractable hose to treat those clones within the radius of the hose system (from 150’ to 250’). This operation would continue south along the levee and then east along the north side of Mowry Slough, treating the mapped clones within this area. Clones within the bay edge marshlands extending from Mowry Slough to Calaveras Point would be treated with the methods outlined above. It may be necessary given the time involved in traveling from site to site to schedule these trips on separate days depending upon the amount of time required to complete each phase. The Coyote Creek portion of this site requires access via boat. Equipped with materials to refill backpack sprayers (herbicide, water, surfactant, dye), the boats would ferry personnel to the scattered clonal locations along the creek for treatment.

7 Sub-Areas 5b-5d: These sites will rely heavily on the use of levee-based spray trucks to do treatment work within the marsh. Where appropriate, backpack sprayers or boat mounted spray apparatus may be used. Treatment in these areas will also be initiated following the end of CLRA breeding season.

Access and Timing The treatment areas are to be accessed via the adjacent levees and by boat navigating up the channels. No access roads or ramps will need to be constructed. The SCVWD and DENWR have granted access to the sites through their properties. If necessary, written permissions will be obtained for access to the sites during the treatment periods. Treatment of the area is planned for after clapper rail nesting season, which ends on August 31. All treatment methods must be implemented on a low tide. A detailed treatment schedule is included as Attachment 2: Work Program.

Equipment and Materials A general description of the equipment and materials needed for each treatment method follows. Details and costs are included in Attachment 2: Work Program.

Herbicide Application Application of herbicide on this site would be via conventional backpack sprayer and, where appropriate, a conventional spray trucks, boat mounted spray apparatus, lightweight, amphibious tracked vehicles using glyphosate herbicide, Agridex or LI-700 (surfactants), and Blazon (colorant). Additional materials may include boats to ferry personnel to treatment sites along Coyote creek, public notification flags for trails, and spill cleanup materials. See Attachment 2: Work Program for details.

Personnel and Contract Requirements See Attachment 2: Work Program for personnel and contract budget details.

Site Safety and Spill Prevention A Site Safety and Spill Prevention Plan has been developed for this site, and will be implemented (see Attachment 4: Site Safety & Spill Prevention).

Permitting and Environmental Compliance

Required Permits and Authorizations The following federal, state, and regional authorizations are required to implement the proposed work. Copies of these authorizations are included in Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance, and any permit requirements have been incorporated into the Site Specific Project Mitigation Table in that attachment.

Permit/Action Agency Required for work Status at this site

8 CWA Section 404 ACOE Not Required

RHA Section 10 ACOE Not Required

Endangered species USFWS Yes Programmatic B.O. issued 8/29/03. consultation Site-specific B.O. pending.

NPDES Permit SWRCB/ Yes ISP filed NOI with SWRCB RWQCB Pending WQ Monitoring Plan to RWQCB Section 401 WQC RWQCB Not Required

BCDC permit BCDC Not Required

FPS Notification CDFG Yes Notification to be submitted. Streambed Alteration CDFG Not Required Agreement

Mitigation and Conservation Measures Pursuant to the ISP Programmatic EIS/R, the project has been evaluated to determine potential site-specific impacts and necessary mitigation and conservation measures. This evaluation is attached as Site-Specific Project Impact Evaluation and Site Specific Project Mitigation checklists (Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance). All mitigations identified in the Site Specific Project Mitigation checklist will be implemented and verified by the ISP Field Supervisor.

Compliance Monitoring and Reporting The Project will comply with all applicable regulations and permits and will submit reports according to the requirements of the agencies. Monitoring for compliance with the statewide NPDES permit will be completed according to the Water Quality Monitoring Plan developed by the ISP. Portions of the WQMP applicable to this site are attached. All data collected from this project will be reviewed by the ISP Monitoring and Data Assessment Team, and data and reports will be available on the ISP website (www.spartina.org).

Research There is no research associated with the ISP currently planned within this area.

Quality Assurance and Control QA/QC to be completed prior to project completion

9 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Attachment 1. Site Maps and Photographs

10 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

5. Coyote Creek and Mowry Slough Area, Non-native Spartina Locations Total non-native Spartina 511 square meters = 0.1 acres

# #

#

#

# # #

# # ## # Mowry Slough, # 278 square meters non-native Spartina

#

#

# # # # ## # ## # Coyote Creek, # # ## 233 square meters non-native Spartina Legend# Spartina species points # S alterniflora/hybrid field ID # # Hybrid lab tested # N # S. alte rniflora la b teste d #### # S. densiflora # S. foliosa ####### # # S. patens # # # # #### ### W E # S. anglica ## #### ## # # # # unknown S al t/ fol # Spartina species lines S. alt/hyb field ID # S # 11 Hybrid lab tested S. densiflora S. alterniflora/hybrid %Cover 0%_identified 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Miles <1%_(mature) 1-10% 10-30% TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Attachment 2. Work Program

12 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Attachment 3. Environmental Compliance

13 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Attachment 4. Site Safety and Spill Prevention

14 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Attachment 5. Research Plan

SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATION Site Name: Coyote Creek & Mowry Slough Area, Alameda County TSN: ISP-2004-5

Applica Sub-Area Applicable Mitigations* ble to Included (by Treatment Method used at site) Comments/Analysis of Residual Impact Additional Mitigation Impact* site Herbicide at site Required

GEO-1: Erosion or deposition of NA/NE NA/NE - Proposed activities are not None sediment at treatment site ground disturbing and will not elevate erosion above ambient levels.

GEO-2: Erosion or topographic NA/NE NA/NE-No equipment will be working on None change of marsh and mudflat by marsh or mudflat surfaces vehicles used in eradication

GEO-3: Remobilization of sand in NA/NE NA/NE- Proposed activities will not take None cordgrass-stabilized place within an estuarine beach. estuarine beaches

GEO-4: Increased demand for NA/NE NA/NE- No dredging/sediment disposal None sediment disposal and potential proposed spread of invasive cordgrass via sediment disposal.

GEO-5: Increased volume and A None No adverse impact (see EIS/R GEO-5 None velocity of tidal currents in discussion). Site conditions consistent channels due to the removal of with those anticipated in the PEIS/R. invasive cordgrass.

15 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applica Sub-Area Applicable Mitigations* ble to Included (by Treatment Method used at site) Comments/Analysis of Residual Impact Additional Mitigation Impact* site Herbicide at site Required

GEO-6: Increased depth and NA/NE NA/NE- - Proposed activities will not take None turbulence of tidewaters place within salt marsh pans. impounded in salt marsh pans.

WQ-1: Degradation of Water A All Sub-Areas WQ-1 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None Quality due to Herbicide to less than significant (per EIS/R, Application Impact/Mitigation WQ-1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

WQ-2: Degradation of Water A All Sub-Areas WQ-2 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None Quality due to Herbicide Spills to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation WQ-2). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

WQ-3: Degradation of Water A All Sub-Areas WQ-3 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None Quality due to Fuel or Petroleum to less than significant (per EIS/R, Spills Impact/Mitigation WQ-3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

WQ-4: Degradation of Water NA/NE NA/NE - No dredging or other sediment- None Quality due to Contaminant mobilizing activities proposed. Remobilization

WQ-5: Water Quality Effects NA/NE NA/NE – This impact only applies to None Resulting from Sediment Accretion EIS/R Alternative 3.

BIO-1.1: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE – Field surveys found no salt- None tidal marsh plant communities meadow or English cordgrass at this site. affected by salt-meadow cordgrass and English cordgrass.

16 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applica Sub-Area Applicable Mitigations* ble to Included (by Treatment Method used at site) Comments/Analysis of Residual Impact Additional Mitigation Impact* site Herbicide at site Required

BIO-1.2: Effects on tidal marsh A All Sub-Areas BIO-1.2 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None plant communities affected by to less than significant (per EIS/R, Atlantic smooth cordgrass and its Impact/Mitigation BIO-1.2). Site conditions hybrids. consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-1.3: Effects on tidal marsh NA/NE NA/NE – Field surveys found no Chilean None plant communities affected by cordgrass at site. Chilean cordgrass.

BIO-1.4: Effects NA/NE NA/NE – Field surveys found no eelgrass None on submerged aquatic plant or other submerged aquatic plants at site. communities.

BIO-2: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE - Field surveys found no special- None special-status plants in tidal status plant species at site. marshes.

BIO-3: Effects on shorebirds and A All Sub-Areas BIO-3 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None waterfowl. to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-4.1: Effects on the salt marsh A All Sub-Areas BIO-4.1 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None harvest mouse and tidal marsh to less than significant (per EIS/R, shrew species. Impact/Mitigation BIO-4.1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-4.2: Effects on resident A All Sub-Areas BIO-4.2 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None harbor seal colonies of San to less than significant (per EIS/R, Francisco Bay. Impact/Mitigation BIO-4.2). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

17 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applica Sub-Area Applicable Mitigations* ble to Included (by Treatment Method used at site) Comments/Analysis of Residual Impact Additional Mitigation Impact* site Herbicide at site Required

BIO-4.3: Effects on the southern NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range of None sea otter. southern sea otters.

BIO-5.1: Effects on A All Sub-Areas BIO-5.1 as LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None California clapper rail. modified by to less than significant (per EIS/R, UFSWS BO Impact/Mitigation BIO-5.1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-5.2: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range black None the California black rail. rails.

BIO-5.3: Effects on tidal marsh A All Sub-Areas BIO-5.3 as LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None song sparrow subspecies and the modified by to less than significant (per EIS/R, salt marsh common yellowthroat. UFSWS BO Impact/Mitigation BIO-5.3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-5.4: Effects on A All Sub-Areas BIO-5.4 as LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None California least terns and modified by to less than significant (per EIS/R, UFSWS BO Impact/Mitigation BIO-5.4). Site conditions owy plovers. western sn consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-5.5: Effects on raptors (birds NA/NE NA/NE-No aerial applications proposed None of prey). for this site.

BIO-6.1: Effects on A All Sub-Areas BIO-6.1 as LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None anadromous salmonids (winter-run modified by to less than significant (per EIS/R, and spring-run Chinook salmon, UFSWS BO Impact/Mitigation BIO-6.1). Site conditions steelhead). consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-6.2: Effects on delta smelt NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known delta smelt None and Sacramento splittail. and Sacramento splittail range.

18 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applica Sub-Area Applicable Mitigations* ble to Included (by Treatment Method used at site) Comments/Analysis of Residual Impact Additional Mitigation Impact* site Herbicide at site Required

BIO-6.3: Effects on the tidewater NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range of None goby. tidewater goby.

BIO-6.4: Effects on estuarine fish A All Sub-Areas BIO-6.4 – LTS/NLTAE with additional mitigation BIO-6.4(b) - R-11 will populations of shallow submerged minimize BIO-6.4(b) not be used adjacent intertidal mudflats and channels. spraying to channel to (Note: no mowing proposed accept in test minimize any plots because of unacceptable impacts to potential adverse birds) affects on estuarine fish.

BIO-7: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range of None California red-legged frog and San California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. Francisco garter snake.

BIO-8: Effects of regional invasive NA/NE NA/NE – Site activities will not create None cordgrass eradication on mosquito additional mosquito habitat. production.

BIO-9: Effects on tiger beetle NA/NE NA/NE- no potential tiger beetle habitat None species. will be affected.

AQ-1: Dust Emissions. A All Sub-Areas AQ-1 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts mitigated None to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation AQ-1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

AQ-2: Smoke Emissions. NA/NE NA/NE – no burning proposed. None

AQ-3: Herbicide Effects on NA/NE NA/NE-No aerial applications proposed None Air Quality.

AQ-4: Ozone Precursor NA/NE LTS/NLTAE without mitigation. None Emissions.

19 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applica Sub-Area Applicable Mitigations* ble to Included (by Treatment Method used at site) Comments/Analysis of Residual Impact Additional Mitigation Impact* site Herbicide at site Required

AQ-5: Carbon Monoxide (CO) NA/NE LTS/NLTAE without mitigation. None Emissions.

N-1: Disturbance of Sensitive NA/NE NA/NE-No sensitive receptors within None Receptors project site-area closed to public

HS-1: Worker Injury from NA/NE NA/NE-Methods not proposed for site. None Accidents Associated with Manual and Mechanical Cordgrass Treatment.

HS-2: Worker Health Effects from A All Sub-Areas HS-2 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts mitigated None Herbicide Application. to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation HS-2). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

HS-3: Health Effects to the Public A All Sub-Areas HS-3 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts mitigated None from Herbicide Application. to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation HS-3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

HS-4: Health effects to workers or A All Sub-Areas HS-4 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts mitigated None the public from accidents to less than significant (per EIS/R, associated with treatment. Impact/Mitigation HS-4). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

VIS-1: Alteration of Views from A All Sub-Areas VIS-1 SU - impacts addressed in EIS/R and None Removal of Non-native Cordgrass CEQA findings. Site conditions consistent Infestations. with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

20 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applica Sub-Area Applicable Mitigations* ble to Included (by Treatment Method used at site) Comments/Analysis of Residual Impact Additional Mitigation Impact* site Herbicide at site Required

VIS-2: Change in Views from NA/NE NA/NE- Applies only to PEIS/R Alternative None Native Marsh, Mudflat, and Open 3 (No Action) Water to Non-native Cordgrass Meadows and Monocultures.

LU-1: Land Use Conflicts Between A LTS/NLTAE - Limited to less than None Herbicide Use and Sensitive significant by HS, N and AQ mitigations. Receptors

LU-2: Land Use Conflicts from NA/NE NA/NE - Methods not proposed for site None Mechanical and Burning Treatment Methods

CUL-1: Disturbance or Destruction A All Sub-Areas CUL-1b only LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts mitigated None of Cultural Resources from Access to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/ and Treatment. Mitigation CUL-1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

CUL-2: Loss of Cultural NA/NE NA/NE- No erosion-producing activities None Resources from Erosion. proposed

CUM-1- Effects of wetland NA/NE NA/NE- No restoration projects proposed None restoration projects on spread of on this site non-native cordgrass

CUM-2- Cumulative damage to NA/NE NA/NE- No Mosquito Abatement Districts None marsh plain vegetation working on this site

SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECT MITIGATION Site Name: Coyote Creek & Mowry Slough Area, Alameda County TSN: ISP-2004-5

Impact Applicable Mitigation & Applicable Herbicid Implementation Verification Signatures

21 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Implementin ISP Field g Entity Supervisor WQ-1: Degradation of Water Quality Apply herbicide directly to plant at All Sub- X During treatment due to Herbicide Application low tide and according to label. Areas (WQ-1;CM-3,4) WQ-2: Degradation of Water Quality Apply under supervision of trained All Sub- X During treatment due to Herbicide Spills applicator (WQ-2;CM-3) Areas Implement spill and containment All Sub- X During treatment plan provided or approved by ISP Areas (WQ-2; CM-3,17) WQ-3: Degradation of Water Quality Implement spill and containment All Sub- X During treatment due to Fuel or Petroleum Spills plan provided or approved by ISP Areas (WQ-3;CM-17) BIO-1.2: Effects on tidal marsh plant Minimize entry and re-entry into All Sub- X During treatment communities affected by Atlantic marsh , define access points (BIO- Areas smooth cordgrass and its hybrids. 1.2;CM-1)) Avoid staging in high, dense All Sub- X During treatment vegetation such as gumplant or Areas pickleweed (FWS GL) Avoid herbicide application to non- All Sub- X During treatment target vegetation adjacent to Areas treatment area (BIO-1.2;CM-3,4) BIO-3: Effects on shorebirds, Avoid working within 1,000 feet of All Sub- X During treatment waterfowl & marshland birds. occupied mudflats during peak Areas Pacific Flyway stopovers (BIO-3) Occupy treatment area soon after All Sub All X During treatment high tide, before mudflats emerge Sub-Areas (BIO-3) Haze shorebirds to minimize All Sub- X During treatment potential direct contact with Areas herbicide drift (BIO-3)

22 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applicable Mitigation & Verification Signatures Applicable Herbicid Implementation Conservation Measures Sub-site Timing Implementin ISP Field Impact e g Entity Supervisor BIO-4.1: Effects on the salt marsh Use shortest possible access route All Sub- X During treatment harvest mouse and tidal marsh shrew through any pickleweed habitat. Areas species. Flag areas of repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM-15) Use protective mats or other All Sub- X During treatment covering over pickleweed in areas Areas or repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM- 15) BIO-4.2:Effectson resident Harbor Minimize vehicle and foot access to All Sub- X During treatment Seal colonies of San Francisco Bay marsh within 1000 feet of haul out Areas sites (BIO-4.2) Avoid approaching haul out sites All Sub- X During treatment within 2000 feet (or any distance Areas that elicits vigilance behavior) when pups are present (BIO-4.2) Follow ISP spill prevention plan or All Sub- X During treatment equivalent (BIO-42.;CM-17) Areas BIO-5.1: Effects on California clapper Perform work only during Sept 1 All Sub- X During treatment rail. thru Feb 1 to avoid CLRA breading Areas season (BIO-5.1; CM-18) For work within the Clapper Rail All Sub- X Pre treatment breeding season, call counts will be Areas performed in the early spring according to FWS protocols (CM- 18) Provide CLRA Field biologist All Sub- X During treatment supervision (BIO-5.1) Areas Assure that field personnel are All Sub- X Pretreatment and trained in general CLRA biology Areas during treatment and CLRA identification and call detection (BIO-5.1)

23 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applicable Mitigation & Verification Signatures Applicable Herbicid Implementation Conservation Measures Sub-site Timing Implementin ISP Field Impact e g Entity Supervisor Report any CLRA activity All Sub- X During and post immediately to ISP Field Areas treatment Supervisor and in post-treatment report (BIO-5.1) BIO-5.3: Effects on tidal marsh song Report any SMSS and SCYE All Sub- X During and post sparrow subspecies and the salt marsh activity immediately to ISP Field Areas treatment common yellowthroat. Supervisor and in post-treatment report (BIO-5.3) BIO-5.4: Effects on Survey access levees for nesting All Sub- X Pre-treatment Areas California least terns and western CALT and WSPL prior to entry snowy plovers. (BIO-5.4;CM-20) Report any CALT and WSPL All Sub- X During and post activity immediately to ISP Field Areas treatment Supervisor and in post-treatment report (BIO-5.4) Ensure 500 foot buffer around All Sub- X During treatment nests for any helicopter activity Areas (BIO-5.5) All Sub- BIO-6.1: Effects on anadromous Minimize herbicide applications X During treatment Areas salmonids (winter-run and spring-run (BIO-6.1) Chinook salmon, steelhead).

BIO-6.4: Effects on estuarine fish Minimize spraying near channels All Sub- X During treatment populations of shallow submerged (BIO-6.4) Areas intertidal mudflats and channels. Avoid use of alylphenol ethoxylate All Sub- X During treatment surfactants adjacent to channel to Areas minimize any potential adverse affects on estuarine fish AQ-1: Dust emissions Limit speeds on dirt roads to 15 All Sub- X During treatment miles per hour (AQ-1) Areas N-1: Disturbance of Sensitive Comply with all local noise All Sub- X During treatment Receptors ordinances (N-1) Areas

24 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Applicable Mitigation & Verification Signatures Applicable Herbicid Implementation Conservation Measures Sub-site Timing Implementin ISP Field Impact e g Entity Supervisor All Sub- HS-2: Worker Health Effects from Follow handling and application X During treatment Herbicide Application. procedures as identified on product Areas label (HS-2;CM-3,4) HS-3: Health Effects to the Public Minimize drift according to ISP drift All Sub- X During treatment from Herbicide Application. management plan (HS-3;CM-3,4) Areas Post appropriate signage (see All Sub- X Pre-treatment attached signage requirements) a Areas minimum of 24 hours pre-treatment (HS-3) HS-4: Health effects to workers or the Maintain ISP or approved All Sub- X During treatment public from accidents associated with equivalent Site Safety and Spill Areas treatment. Prevention plan on site (HS-4Cm- 3,4,17) VIS-1: Alteration of Views from Post appropriate signage according All Sub- X Pre-treatment, Removal of Non-native Cordgrass to ISP signage protocols (VIS-1) Areas during treatment, Infestations. post-treatment CUL-1: Disturbance or Destruction of Report all discovered prehistoric or All Sub- X Pre-treatment Cultural Resources from Access and historic resources to the ISP Field Areas and during Treatment. Supervisor and a qualified treatment archeologist or historic resources consultant and suspend all work at site until archaeological mitigation has taken place (CUL-1) CM-7: Invasive Species Monitor cleared patches for All Sub- X Post treatment recruitment of invasive plant Areas species including perennial pepperweed until native vegetation has become dominant (CM-7)

25 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Invasive Spartina Control Plan For Whale’s Tail and the Old Alameda Creek Channel Alameda County Including: Northern Channel Bank Southern Channel Bank Central Channel Island Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh Cargill Mitigation Marsh

# # # # # #

# # # # # #

26 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

TSN: ISP-2004-13 2004 Control Season

27

TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Table of Contents

Project Partners 30 California Department of Fish and Game (John Krause (415) 454-8050) ...... 30 Cargill Corporation (Barbara Ransom)...... 30 General Information 31 Site Description...... 31 Infestation Description...... 32 Ecological Threat and Reason for Prioritization...... 33 Endangered Species Issues ...... 33 Treatment Plan 35 Management Objectives and Efficacy Criteria...... 35 Treatment Method(s) ...... 37 2004 Treatment Strategy...... 38 Access and Timing...... 40 Equipment and Materials ...... 41 Herbicide Application...... 41 Personnel and Contract Requirements...... 42 Site Safety and Spill Prevention ...... 42 Permitting and Environmental Compliance 42 Required Permits and Authorizations ...... 42 Mitigation and Conservation Measures ...... 43 Compliance Monitoring and Reporting ...... 43 Attachment 1. Site Maps and Photographs 45 Attachment 2. Work Program 46 Attachment 3. Environmental Compliance 47 Attachment 4. Site Safety and Spill Prevention 48 Attachment 5. Research Plan 49

Introduction This is a plan for control of non-native, invasive Spartina for the area commonly referred to as “Whale’s Tail”; an area that for the purposes of this plan includes the old Alameda Creek Channel, the northern and southern marshes at the Channel’s outlet as well as the area to the south of the main channel referred to as the Cargill Mitigation Marsh. The plan was prepared by consultants of the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), in collaboration with the Project Partners listed below. The plan includes background and site information, site-specific goals, treatment strategy, and a description of potential impacts of treatment. The plan also specifies actions or practices (“mitigations”) necessary to implement the plan with the least possible adverse environmental impact, in compliance with the ISP’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

29 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

and all applicable regulatory requirements. The plan will be implemented by the Project Partners, with assistance from the ISP, beginning in late summer of 2004. This control plan was developed based on the concepts of “Integrated Vegetation Management,” whereby a broad range of site-specific factors were considered to determine the optimal combination of treatment methods (manual, mechanical, and chemical) and strategies for use at the site. The control plan may be modified over time as new scientific information becomes available, and based on site-specific conditions.

Project Partners Property Owners:

Alameda County Flood Control District (Saul Ferdan (510) 385-2520) The ACFCD wants to remove NN Spartina from the main channel to maintain channel capacity for flood protection. They have an ongoing maintenance program, but have been unable to effectively control NN Spartina due to the rapid rate of expansion of established populations, invasion pressure from nearby sites, limited funding and staff, and endangered species issues. The ACFCD is committed to provide staff, equipment, and money to the project (see Project Budget). The ACFCD currently owns and maintains those areas between the levees of the main Channel of Old Alameda Creek, including Sub-Areas 13a, b, and c.

California Department of Fish and Game (John Krause (415) 454-8050) The CDFG is actively working in the Whale’s Tail area to restore large tracts of diked salt ponds to tidal influence. The Eden Landing Ecological Reserve restoration project (Baumberg tract) encompasses some 775 acres of potential salt marsh habitat directly adjacent to infested stands of NN Spartina. The CDFG is concerned with the potential effects of adjacent uncontrolled infestations of NN Spartina, and the capacity of these invasives to undermine the habitat diversity envisioned in the Eden Landing restoration plan. The CDFG has been actively working to pursue efficient methods of controlling NN Spartina on their lands within the Whale’s Tail Complex, and coordination of CDFG efforts with the efforts of the ACFCD will greatly help to further this goal. The CDFG is also limited in resources available to commit to controlling NN Spartina in the area, but will provide access and staff when available for control efforts on their properties. CDFG currently owns Sub-Areas 13d and e, and is seeking ways of developing effective control strategies for those areas. CDFG will also take over management from Cargill Corp. of Sub-Area 13f following the completion of the Performance Criteria associated with this mitigation site.

Cargill Corporation (Barbara Ransom) Cargill Corporation owns the 49 acre Cargill Mitigation Marsh area, a restored former solar salt production evaporator pond located east of the Southern Whale’s

30 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Tail Marsh and south of the Old Alameda Creek Channel. This area was constructed in 1995 as a mitigation site for ongoing Cargill Corp. salt production operations and was restored to full tidal action in 1998. Performance Criteria for the site indicate that NN Spartina was to be monitored and controlled within the site during the 10 year development phase of the project. Currently, the area is heavily infested with clones of hybrid NN Spartina and functions as an active seed source for the entire Whale’s Tail Complex.

General Information

Site Description The Whale’s Tail Complex is a large complex encompassing many different Spartina invaded and susceptible habitats. The total acreage of the area under consideration is 576 acres, with roughly 92 net acres of Spartina within the Complex. This area includes remnant marshland patches that predate salt production based alterations to the site, channelized flood control structures, restored salt pond marshland, small, sinuous channels, high marsh flats, mudflats, eroding scarp, sandy and shell beach, small depositional deltas and other habitats. This area lies to the south of the San Mateo Bridge east of Union City. The areas included within this Complex are entirely restricted from public access and are managed by CDFG as wildlife habitat (Sub-Areas 13 d-f), and by ACFCD as flood control structures (Sub-Areas 13a-c)( See Sub-Area descriptions below). On the northern sides of the main Channel, former diked salt ponds are undergoing restoration activities to convert them to tidally influenced marshlands. To the south of the main Channel, Cargill Corporation maintains active salt-producing evaporation ponds as part of its salt- producing business practice. For the purposes of this project, the Whale’s Tail Complex has been divided into six sub- areas (13a through 13f), based on endangered species issues, infestation size and density, and treatment logistics. These sub-areas are: Sub-Area 13a – Northern Bank of Old Alameda Creek Channel: The northern levee of the Old Alameda Creek Channel, which runs roughly 4 miles from the “20-tide Gates” flood control structure upstream near Union City, downstream to the mouth of the Creek. Sub-Area 13b – Central Island of Old Alameda Creek Channel: The central island of Old Alameda Creek also runs from the “20-Tide Gates” area near Union City, and continues to the outlet of the Creek into the Bay. The island is roughly 50 meters wide throughout its length, bounded on the north and south sides by borrow ditches which drain the Channel. The area is roughly 80 acres in total. Sub-Area 13c – Southern Bank of Old Alameda Creek Channel: The southern bank of the Channel is very similar to the northern bank in size and is presented separately due to access issues only. Sub-Area 13d – Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh: Northern Whales Tail marsh is a wide expanse of high to mid-marsh habitat bounded on the east by a low levee, on the west by the Bay, to the south by the Channel of Old Alameda Creek and to the north by the northern levees of Mt. Eden Creek. Within the marsh are scattered pans, pickleweed/ salt grass habitat, and sinuous second and third order channels. The bay-ward edge of the

31 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

marsh consists of an extensively complicated and undulating sand-shell beach/ eroding scarp/ clay and cobble complex that grades into wide mudflats extending westward. Sub-Area 13e – Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh: The Southern Whale’s Tail Sub-Area is situated south of the Channel of Old Alameda Creek, bounded on the east by a levee separating this site from the Cargill Mitigation Site and the west by the bay. The marsh tapers to the south as the eastern and western boundaries meet at rip-rap lining a bay-edge levee extending southward. This area is very similar to the Northern Whales Tail Marsh site, with a few exceptions. There are two main channels that drain the adjacent Cargill mitigation site that flow through the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh. The first, in the northern portion of the Marsh is the smaller of the two, roughly four to six meters across at its mouth. This channel drains from the northern section of the adjacent Cargill Mitigation Marsh through a small levee breach spanned by a footbridge. A larger channel parallels the eastern levee from its origin in a wide breach of roughly 10m in the levee separating Southern Whales Tail from the Cargill Mitigation Marsh. No bridge spans this breach. The channel runs to a small delta into the bay at the southern end of the marsh. Sub-Area 13f – Cargill Mitigation Marsh: This Sub-Area is a 49-acre former solar salt production evaporator restoration site opened to muted tidal l action in 1995, and full tidal action in 1998. It is bounded on the north by the levees of the Old Alameda Creek Channel, on the west by the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh Site, and to the east and south by active salt producing salt ponds. The entirety of the Site is surrounded by levees, with two breach points on the western levee which drains the Site into the Southern Whale’s Tail area.

Infestation Description Sub-Area 13a – Northern Bank of Old Alameda Creek: Along this expanse there is an estimated 16 acres of suitable fringe marsh habitat open for potential colonization by Spartina hybrids, consisting of a 5-15 meter wide grade from higher marsh Pickleweed/Salt grass upper portion to a lower S. foliosa/ mudflat portion. Currently, less than 20% of the available area is colonized by Spartina hybrids. The infestation currently consists mostly of disjunct clones scattered along the bank of the levee, with a few areas where several clonal patches have coalesced. Sub-Area 13b – Central Island of Old Alameda Creek Channel: with less than 16 acres of the island infested with non-native Spartina. The infestation consists of several large, coalesced clones near the mouth of the Channel, with scattered clones lining the north and south banks of the island. Near the mouth of the Channel, the clones exist amongst a matrix of Pickleweed and S. foliosa, and have begun to move out into the lower marsh mudflats. Sub-Area 13c – Southern Bank of Old Alameda Creek Channel: Distribution of clonal populations of non-native Spartina is similar to the Northern Bank. It is presented as a distinct site due to access issues only. Sub-Area 13d – Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh: Non-native Spartina is extensively infesting the bayward edge of the marsh taking advantage of and accelerating the marsh-edge scarp erosional process, while simultaneously prograding Spartina-suitable marsh habitat onto the mudflats bay-ward. Many of these

32 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

clones are large coalesced complexes hugging the eroding edge of the marsh, as well as establishing at various distances away from the high marsh edge. The Spartina also extends east into the interior of the marsh from the bay edge in scattered and irregular patches and wide stands. Within the central portion of the marsh, the Spartina infestation is establishing along the edges of channels, at the periphery of the many shallow pans, and in disjunct locations within the wide open stands of pickleweed high marsh throughout the area. There is an estimated 200 acres in the Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh, with an estimated 20 net acres of Spartina. Sub-Area 13e – Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh: The Spartina infesting this Sub-Area is similar to the distribution within the Northern Whales Tail Marsh, except that the presence of the two large channels in this marsh has allowed the Spartina to establish farther into the interior of the marsh using the channels as distribution pathways for propagules. It is estimated that there is roughly 37 net acres of Spartina on this site, out of 185 total acres of Marsh. Sub-Area 13f – Cargill Mitigation Marsh: Since the opening of this area to full tidal action, the marsh has become infested with large, coalescing clones of Spartina. On the eastern portion of the site these clones have coalesced into meadows. There is roughly 19 net acres of Spartina within this marsh.

Ecological Threat and Reason for Prioritization The Spartina invasion at this site is considered an extremely high environmental threat for a number of reasons, including the following: 1. It is one of the largest and oldest infestations of S. alterniflora/hybrids in San Francisco Bay (see attached photographs). Propagules and seed from this site are spreading, and will continue to spread, to uninfested marshes and mudflats throughout the Estuary. 2. The site is directly adjacent to many thousands of acres of proposed restoration sites, especially the Baumberg and Eden Landing areas, and will provide insurmountable invasion pressure on those sites once they are opened to tidal influence. 3. The continued expansion of the S. alterniflora/hybrid populations within the Old Alameda Creek Channel threatens to increase sedimentation rates such that the flood mitigating purpose of the channel may be compromised. The ISP might not typically prioritize an infested area of this magnitude (density and expanse) for full treatment during the first season because the Program’s strategy generally calls for addressing smaller or outlying areas first. However, because of this site’s close proximity to important proposed restoration sites and because the ACFCD is on hand and anxious to partner with the ISP to initiate work, the site’s priority was elevated.

Endangered Species Issues The ISP PEIS/R identified 43 sensitive species of plants and animals that could occur within the waters and adjacent lands of the San Francisco Estuary (PEIS/R Appendix F). Of these 43 species, 12 were determined to be at sufficient risk of direct, indirect, or

33 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

cumulative adverse impacts to require site-specific evaluation and potential mitigation*. The conditions at this site were evaluated to determine the potential presence of these 12 species, and it was concluded that California clapper rail (CLRA) and salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) are or may be present within the proposed treatment area; no other special status species are expected to be present at this site. Potential impacts and required mitigations for these species are summarized below. Additional impacts and mitigation information is included in Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance. California clapper rail. Surveys for clapper rail were conducted for this site during late February and early March 2004 by biologists of the USFWS and CDFG. Clapper rails were detected along the entirety of the main channel (Sub-Areas 13a-13c), within the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh (Sub-Area 13e), and within the Cargill Mitigation Marsh (Sub-Area 13f). No CACR were detected within the Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh (Sub- Area 13d). Unless otherwise authorized by the USFWS, control activities will only occur outside of the clapper rail nesting season (September 1 through January 31) for those sub- Areas where rail presence has been confirmed, and all Best Management Practices and mitigations identified in the ISP EIS/R must be implemented. Additionally, the following mitigations will be employed on the site to avoid impacts to the CLRA (Spelled out in Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance): • Perform work during Sept 1 thru Feb 1 to avoid CLRA breading season (BIO- 5.1;CM-18) • For work within the Clapper rail breeding season, surveys will be performed in the early spring according to FWS protocols (CM-18) • Provide CLRA Field biologist supervision. (BIO-5.1) • Assure that field personnel are trained in general CLRA biology and CLRA identification and call detection. (BIO-5.1) • Report any CLRA activity immediately to ISP Field Supervisor and in post- treatment report (BIO-5.1) Salt marsh harvest mouse. As there is suitable Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (SMHM) habitat throughout the proposed treatment areas (All sub-areas), SMHM presence will be assumed for all operations, and appropriate mitigations will be employed for all impacts identified in the PEIS/R. Salt marsh harvest mice do not inhabit the lower marsh elevations where Spartina is typically found. Control activities only have the potential to affect SMHM habitat during entrance and egress from treatment areas. In addition to the following mitigations (spelled out in Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance), Best Management Practices including minimizing access routes will be utilized to assure the reduction of potential impacts to the SMHM and its habitat. • Use shortest possible access route through any pickleweed habitat. Flag areas of repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM-13) • Use protective mats or other covering over pickleweed in areas or repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM-13)

* Potentially affected species include soft bird’s-beak, salt marsh harvest mouse, harbor seals, California black and clapper rails, salt marsh common yellowthroat, some tidal marsh song sparrow subspecies, western snowy plovers, California least terns, Chinook salmon, steelhead, and Sacramento splittail.

34 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Treatment Plan

Management Objectives and Efficacy Criteria The ultimate goal for the Whale’s Tail Complex would be to reduce the Spartina infestation in all of the Sub-Areas to a low-intensity management level, such that the potential for infestation of adjacent restoration sites would be lessened or eliminated completely. 2004 Season: Due to the impending breach in the northern levee of the main channel of Old Alameda Creek by CDFG as part of their Eden Landing/North Creek Restoration, work within the 2004 Season must be focused on minimizing the invasion pressures on these newly opened marshland areas. One of the stated goals of the Eden Landing Restoration is to establish vegetation relatively quickly within the new marshland by providing shallow marsh habitat suitable for seeding establishment. Unfortunately, this will also lead to the rapid colonization of these areas by non-native invasive Spartina hybrids if the established adjacent populations are not controlled first. If the proposed breaching timeline is followed as currently proposed, the northern levee will be breached in the fall of 2004. While the ISP strongly recommends that the proposed breaching activities be delayed until a full treatment season has been allowed to proceed within the adjacent Spartina-infested areas defined in this plan, this basic treatment plan assumes that the breaching will proceed as planned. With this in mind, in an effort to delineate areas within the Whale’s Tail Complex where early season (pre- Fall) Spartina control work might proceed, clapper rail surveys were conducted in late January and early February 2004 by representatives of CDFG and the US Fish & Wildlife Service. Of the six Sub-Areas included within this Site-Specific Plan only 13d, Northern Whale’s Tail, was found to be free of breeding populations of clapper rail, and therefore suitable for early season Spartina treatment. The remaining five sites will therefore be treated post-September 1st as personnel, tides, weather and access allow. Treatment of the Sub-Areas would proceed in the following order: Sub-Area 13d, Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh would be treated with herbicide early in the season, and multiple treatments of the site would be undertaken in order to treat at least once the majority of the Spartina within the Sub-Area. Work done under this paln would augment Spartina control work accomplished under TSN: ISP-2004-14, the Spartina control plan for Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh. In the post-September 1st treatment season, there are very few dates in 2004 where tides will be suitable for treatment on the remaining Sub-Areas in the Complex. Treatment on the remaining Sub-Areas will therefore be prioritized to maximize the impact on the Spartina population in an effort to minimize infestation pressures on the Eden Landing Restoration. Sub-Areas 13a, b, and c would be the first priority in the post-September 1st treatment season. Herbicide treatments along the levees would maximize treated area in the limited time available for treatment for Sub-Areas 13a and c. Sub-Area might also be treated in this timeframe using amphibious vehicles and possibly boats spraying from the channel. If it is not possible to treat the entire central island during the available tidal windows, then priority will be given to the northern banks of the island to attempt to protect the breach area from an overwhelming influx of Spartina propagules.

35 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Sub-Area 13e, the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh should be approached in a similar way to the northern Whale’s Tail Marsh, though there will be additional access issues due to the larger channels located there. The first priority of this site following September would be to treat the bayside clones to the fullest extent possible via amphibious vehicles, as well as those areas readily accessible by trucks and personnel from the adjacent levee system. Sub-Area 13f. The Cargill Mitigation Marsh presents unique challenges and opportunities. The marsh was found to contain at least one pair of breeding clapper rail in the winter 2004 Surveys, so treatment of this area must necessarily wait until the post- September 1st treatment season. This shortened treatment window will allow only short time periods for efficacious treatment via herbicide, and in the spirit of IVM, the ISP is exploring other options for control at this site that are feasible to implement within a short time frame, achieve high levels of control, and immediately remove this site as a source of propagules within the Complex. As Sub-Area 13f is currently surrounded by accessible levees and is only breached in two locations, one option for control will be to construct a structure or structures at the breach points to enable controlled inundation of the marsh to essentially drown the Spartina on the site. This option will be discussed further in the Treatment Strategy section below. 2005 Season: Early in 2005, a new round of California clapper rail surveys will be undertaken within the Complex to update distribution data. This new data will determine a revised strategy for the Complex where appropriate. With that in mind, the treatment strategy outlined for the 2004 Season will be continued, with treatment in Northern Whale’s Tail early in the Season to enable re-treatment of previously treated areas where necessary, and initial treatment of those areas missed in 2004. Treatment of the Main Channel Sub-Area will aim toward complete treatment of all Spartina within the area during the time allowed, especially those areas that may represent the most threat as propagule sources for the Eden Landing/North Creek breach. Treatment of the Southern Whale’s Tail Area would involve the repeated treatment of those areas treated in the 2004 season where applicable, and initial treatments of untreated Spartina within the Sub-Area. The Cargill Mitigation Marsh Site will be monitored for efficacy during the 2005 Season. If the marsh has been successfully inundated, the structures erected to hold back the water will be monitored for continued functionality and repairs will be made where necessary. Any Spartina plants established along the levees on the periphery of the marsh would be treated with herbicide during the season. If efficacy monitoring of the site indicated that the Spartina that was inundated in 2004 was dead, normal tidal flows could be restored to the marsh by early winter 2005. 2006 Season: Treatment strategies for the 2006 Season will be much like the 2005 treatment season, relying upon new clapper rail survey results, the previous season’s efficacy results, and the treatment of all areas where no treatment has yet been undertaken. 2007 Treatment Season and Beyond: Continue previous season’s approaches, aiming toward a program of 100% treatment of non-native Spartina within the Complex, and beginning the implementation of an ongoing maintenance phase of control work in conjunction with adjacent Spartina infested marshlands. This maintenance phase will be in effect until such time as the re-invasion or propagule pressure from adjacent Spartina-

36 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004 infested areas has been eliminated or diminished to such an extent as to not pose a significant threat to the restored, Spartina-free Channel and adjacent marshlands.

Treatment Method(s) A number of treatment methods are proposed for the Whale’s Tail Complex. The following methods and acres treated are estimates based on current known conditions. Actual area treated by each method will depend upon many factors.

Treatment Method Acres of Spartina Sub-Area 13a, Northern Bank of Old Alameda Creek 6.2 total Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Conventional spray truck 6.2

Sub-Area 13b, Central Island of the Old Alameda Creek Channel 16 total Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Amphibious vehicle 12 o Shallow-bottomed boat 4

Sub-Area 13c, Southern Bank of Old Alameda Creek 6.2 total Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Conventional spray truck 6.2

Sub-Area 13d, Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh 20 total Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Conventional spray truck 5 o Personnel equipped with backpack sprayers 1 o Amphibious vehicles 14

Sub-Area 13e, Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh 37 total Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Conventional spray truck 8 o Personnel equipped with backpack sprayers 2 o Amphibious vehicles 27

Sub-Area 13f, the Cargill Mitigation Marsh (2 options) 19 total Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Conventional spray truck 2 o Personnel equipped with backpack sprayers 2 o Amphibious vehicles 14 or

37 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Temporary, controlled inundation by: o Construction of an adjustable weir system 18.5 Application of glyphosate (Aquamaster) herbicide by: o Conventional spray truck/backpack sprayer 0.5

During subsequent years, these methods will be refined and the most efficacious method will ultimately be used to treat the Sub-Areas within the Complex.

2004 Treatment Strategy Treatment strategy for the 2004 Season is informed by the results of the late January/early February 2004 California clapper rail surveys for access timing to the Complex for treatment. Of the six Sub-Areas delineated in this plan, only one, Sub-Area 13d, Northern Whales’ Tail Marsh, was found not to have breeding pairs, and therefore open to early season control efforts. Control within the remaining five Sub-Areas is prioritized for proximity to the proposed breach site in the Northern Bank of the Old Alameda Creek Channel for the Eden Landing/North Creek Restoration, the likelihood of adjacent infestations to exert propagule pressure on the restored areas, availability of treatment resources by the responsible landowners, cooperative tidal windows, and levee access. The latter two considerations are addressed separately in the following section “Access and Timing”. Sub-Area 13d, Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh. Sub-Area 13d is bordered on the eastern, northern and southern sides by vehicle-accessible levees used regularly by CDFG for maintenance and monitoring activities. The western border is the Bay, with a complex, undulating shoreline infested with Spartina. The levees that surround the three sides of the marsh provide ample area for staging and deployment operations of equipment and personnel for control of the Spartina in the Marsh. Three methods of herbicide application will be used within this Sub-Area: levee-based herbicide spray trucks equipped with high-pressure hoses of 100 or more feet in length, ground crews equipped with backpack sprayers that would use levee-based spray trucks or similar “nurse rigs” as mobile staging areas, and lightweight, tracked, amphibious vehicles like the Hydrotraxx or the Argo carrying individual vehicle-mounted spray equipment into the marsh. The initial target for control in this Sub-Area will be the shoreline, which represents the greater portion of the infestation, and is most likely to provide propagules for the further spread of the Spartina throughout the area. Due to the extent of the infestation in this area, ground-based personnel carrying backpack sprayers would be inappropriate. Additionally, the sensitivity of the substrate combined with the potential for negatively impacting the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse precludes any attempt to drive a heavy spray truck into the marsh. Therefore, one or more lightweight, tracked, amphibious vehicles would be the preferred choice. These vehicles could deploy at low tide from the northern and southern levees delineating the Sub-Area and work south and north respectively toward the center, treating the Spartina along the way. Both hand held sprayers for directed spot-spraying activities and boom-type equipment for the larger meadows of Spartina would be used. As necessary,

38 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004 equipment and supplies necessary to refuel or re-supply the treating vehicles would be stationed at the ends of the levees where these vehicles accessed the marsh. Along the levees, spray trucks equipped with long, high-pressure hoses would enable personnel to treat those areas within reach of the hose length. Two or three additional personnel would be equipped with backpack sprayers and penetrate into the interior of the marsh to treat invaded pans, flats, and channels. These roaming ground-based personnel would use the spray trucks as mobile staging areas for refilling their treatment packs at need. Sub-Areas 13a and 13c, the Northern and Southern Banks of Old Alameda Creek. Both of these Sub-Areas may be treated in identical ways. Ready access to the sites is available via the levees on either side of the Creek Channel following the end of the breeding season on September 1st. The Spartina infestations in these areas are confined to relatively thin bands along the creek side, and are readily accessible to spray truck crews moving along the levees. Therefore, at once or in sequence these two levees may be treated with spray-truck based crews along their lengths. Sub-Area 13b, the Central Island of the Old Alameda Creek Channel. Clapper rail surveys of 2004 revealed breeding populations along much of the length of the Central Island of the Channel. Portions of this Sub-Area lie directly adjacent to the proposed breach site of the Eden Landing/North Creek into the Channel and therefore require high prioritization. Treatment of the interior, and all but the extreme edges of the island may be accomplished by lightweight, tracked, amphibious vehicles equipped with suitable spray apparatus. These vehicles will likely require refilling of their spray tanks during the treatment operations, and for that purpose, boats deployed in the channel at high tide prior to treatment operations may cache supplies (water, herbicide, dye) at predetermined locations along the island. Alternately, helicopters may be more appropriate to ferry supplies to treatment crews during or prior to treatment operations. For the treatment of those areas inaccessible via the interior of the island, namely those plants growing lower in the channel, a shallow-bottomed boat equipped with spray apparatus may be used within either of the borrow ditches on either side of the Channel. If tidal windows do not allow treatment of both sides of the Central Island in this manner, then priority should be given to the northern side of the island as this side is in closer proximity to the proposed breach point in the Northern Levee. Sub-Area 13f, Cargill Mitigation Marsh. There is at least one breeding pair of clapper rail currently using the Cargill Mitigation marsh according to 2004 Surveys. This site represents a large source of propagules for re-infesting adjacent marshland areas if left uncontrolled. Due to the very short window of time available for treatment of this area, limited resources available for treatment during that time, and the need for rapid control within this area, there are two main control options for this Sub-Area, both of which may or may not fit with the stated Performance Criteria of the Salt Evaporator Pond B-1 Tidal Marsh Restoration begun in 1995. This site is surrounded by accessible and intact levees with two relatively small breach points on the western side, draining into the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh area. As such, the contained 49 acres of this site present an opportunity to forego the use of herbicides and instead use temporary and controlled inundation of the site to drown the Spartina. This could be accomplished by constructing an adjustable weir system at the larger of the

39 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

two levee breach points and filling the smaller breach. The weir system would be used to fill the marsh at high tides and effectively suffocate the Spartina within the marsh over the course of one to several growing seasons. High tides would be allowed in twice a year, and the marsh would be flushed on the same time frame to preclude the marsh from developing stagnant conditions, high salinity, or excessive buildup of nutrients as the plant matter in the marsh decays. During the period of inundation, the marsh would be converted to open water habitat suitable for many bird species. Also during the inundation period, those Spartina clones located along the periphery of the marsh would be treated with herbicide to completely treat all of the Spartina in the marsh. The secondary option for treatment of the site would involve the conventional use of herbicides within the marsh, using levee-based spray trucks and personnel, ground-based backpack applicators, or lightweight, tracked, amphibious vehicles or some combination of the three. Sub-Area 13e, the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh. Treatment of this area will be identical to the treatment of the Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh area except that the areas where the channels flow into the Bay will possibly require greater caution when using amphibious vehicles. Priority will be given to the western marsh edge and following that, the channels with in the marsh.

Access and Timing Sub-Area 13d: Northern Whale’s Tail Marsh. Access to this area is via a vehicle- accessible levee system that borders the marsh on the north, east and south sides. Ground-based personnel can readily access the marsh from the levees, and will have moderate obstacles in the way of sinuous channels (some obscured) within the marsh. Access to these levees is via locked gate controlled by CDFG. Lightweight, tracked, amphibious vehicles may access the bay edge sand/shell beaches and mudflats by traversing short distances over higher marsh pickleweed/Spartina stands. Where repeated entrance and egress are necessary during treatment, weight distributing fabric mats will be placed on the marsh and the travel routes flagged to protect salt marsh harvest mice. Once in the marsh, these vehicles will be able to traverse the shoreline below habitat suitable for the mouse. Work within the Sub-Area may commence as soon as May 2004 and proceed until October 2004. Given this timeframe, repeated treatments of the Sub-Area are possible based on treatment efficacy monitoring. Treatment of the western shoreline should be done at a retreating low tide or full low tide to enable safe access and egress from the area as well as proper dry times for the chemical. The higher marsh portions of the marsh can be treated during higher tides as they are less likely to be inundated during the summer. Consultation of relevant tide charts will determine specific treatment timings. Sub-Areas 13a and 13c, the Northern and Southern Banks of Old Alameda Creek. Following the end of the clapper rail breeding season on September 1st, spray trucks may be mobilized along the levees at low or receding low tide. Crews could work from the upstream portions to the mouth of the channel to take the greatest advantage of the tidal windows, which will be limited in the fall. Levees are accessible through locked gates controlled by CDFG and the ACFCD. Sub-Area 13b, the Central Island of the Old Alameda Creek Channel. Access to this site will be post-September 1st. Amphibious vehicle access to the Island will be via the

40 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004 southern levee near the 20-Tide Gates area near Union City or where appropriate. These vehicles will then traverse the central island along its length treating Spartina as they proceed with a hand-held spray gun for spot-spray work and with boom equipment for the larger stands. Treatment in this fashion will require receding tides for proper safety and treatment efficacy. Access for any required shallow-bottomed boat will be via the western end of the Northern Levee of the Channel or other suitable place identified by the treatment professionals involved in the operations. This site will be chosen based on several criteria including safety of personnel, ease of entry and egress (especially in cases of emergency), potential damage to the environment with a special concern for endangered species, as well as the potential for the site to increase the danger of spills. Sub-Area 13f, Cargill Mitigation Marsh. Either the temporary inundation approach or the conventional herbicide application approach would be initiated following the end of the breeding season on September 1st. The temporary inundation option would require detailed analysis of appropriate tidal timings. Both options would require access to the site via the adjacent levee system. Conventional herbicide treatments would be done during one of the limited low tide windows in September or October. The levees associated with this site are accessed via locked gates controlled by the ACFCD. Sub-Area 13e, the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh. Vehicle access to the marsh will be via the levees to the north and east of the marsh. Suitable areas for deployment of amphibious vehicles will be flagged, and where necessary to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse, areas of repeated use will be covered in weight-distributing fabric. Some areas may be treatable from the levee system adjacent to the marsh, though on the eastern side a foot bridge spans a small breach close to the northeastern corner of the marsh. This foot bridge will likely inhibit access to the main eastern levee by spray trucks or amphibious vehicles. The eastern levee of the Cargill Mitigation Marsh provides access to the southernmost portions of the Southern Whale’s Tail Marsh, and spray trucks and amphibious vehicles will be able to access the marsh using this route. From here, treatment of the areas surrounding the outlet of the main channel should be possible, along with treatment along the main channel and around the remnant dredge lock there. As in most of the other areas treatment should commence at a receding tide to allow for maximal time for treatment.

Equipment and Materials A general description of the equipment and materials needed for each treatment method follows. Details and costs appropriate for each Sub-Area are included in Attachment 2: Work Program, as devised by the responsible ISP partner.

Herbicide Application Herbicide application will be done with various approaches identified below. Please refer to the Treatment Methods section to determine the applicability of any particular option the Sub-Area in question Conventional spray truck- Spray trucks equipped with mixing tanks for herbicide, water, surfactant and dye, high pressure hose equipment, 100-400 foot hose, mechanical hose retractor and other suitable equipment.

41 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Personnel equipped with backpack sprayers- 4 gallon pump-action herbicide backpack sprayers used by personnel to traverse the marsh and treat the plants in smaller satellite patches. Lightweight amphibious tracked vehicles- vehicles such as the Hydrotraxx or the Argo equipped with mix tanks and spray apparatus including hand held spray guns and booms. Used for those areas where lower ground pressure impacts are required due to the substrate, where the Spartina patches are larger than can be feasibly treated with backpack sprayers, or where access by spray truck is impossible. Shallow-bottomed boats- boats equipped with spray apparatus including tanks, spray guns, booms, or a combination thereof. Can include fan or airboats and well as outboard motor propelled craft. These boats can be used to directly treat the Spartina plants, or to simply ferry tools and supplies to personnel within the treatment area. Temporary inundation For this treatment option, an adjustable weir system will be developed for the larger of the two breach points in the levee on the western side of Sub-Area 13f. This system may require lining the bottom of the breach and driving solid bracing members on either side to support modular weir pieces that could be inserted and removed at need.

Personnel and Contract Requirements Personnel and equipment allocation necessary for completion of the work proposed within each Sub-Area shall be developed by the landowners responsible for treating each Sub-Area. In coordination with the ISP, these approaches will conform to the contracts developed by the State Coastal Conservancy, as well as the treatment approaches identified in this plan for the Complex. Upon completion, each Sub-Area’s Work Program will be attached to this Site Plan in Attachment 2: Work Program. The individual Work Programs should include a detailed budget for proposed work and personnel as well as any appropriate contract budget details. Included with this Site- Specific Plan for the Whale’s Tail Complex is a basic Work Program Outline that identifies many of the items that should be included in a Work Plan associated with this overall Site Plan. Each landowner may have previously developed Work Plan protocols appropriate for their particular agency or group, and to the extent that these Work Plan formats include the relevant information included in the Work Plan Outline, and conform to any State Coastal Conservancy contract requirements, they shall be an acceptable format for inclusion into this overall Site-Specific Plan for the Complex.

Site Safety and Spill Prevention A Site Safety and Spill Prevention Plan has been developed for this site, and will be implemented (see Attachment 4: Site Safety and Spill Prevention).

Permitting and Environmental Compliance

Required Permits and Authorizations The following federal, state, and regional authorizations are required to implement the proposed work. Copies of these authorizations are included in Attachment 3:

42 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Environmental Compliance, and any permit requirements have been incorporated into the Site Specific Project Mitigation Table in that attachment.

Permit/Action Agency Required for work Status at this site CWA Section 404 ACOE No N/A.

RHA Section 10 ACOE No N/A

Endangered species USFWS Yes Programmatic B.O. issued 8/29/03. consultation Site specific B.O. pending.

NPDES Permit SWRCB/ Yes ACFCD has coverage under Statewide RWQCB NPDES permit for herbicide work. CDFG will issue an NOI as ISP partner. Section 401 WQC RWQCB No N/A

BCDC permit BCDC No N/A

FPS Notification CDFG Yes Notification to be submitted. Streambed Alteration CDFG N/A N/A Agreement

Mitigation and Conservation Measures Pursuant to the ISP Programmatic EIS/R, the project has been evaluated to determine potential site-specific impacts and necessary mitigation and conservation measures. This evaluation is attached as Site-Specific Project Impact Evaluation and Site Specific Project Mitigation checklists (Attachment 3: Environmental Compliance). All mitigations identified in the Site Specific Project Mitigation checklist will be implemented and verified by the ISP Field Supervisor.

Compliance Monitoring and Reporting The Project will comply with all applicable regulations and permits and will submit reports according to the requirements of the agencies. Monitoring for compliance with the statewide NPDES permit will be completed according to the Water Quality Monitoring Plan developed by the ISP. Portions of the WQMP applicable to this site are attached. All data collected from this project will be reviewed by the ISP Monitoring and Data Assessment Team, and data and reports will be available on the ISP website (www.spartina.org).

Research Research plans for this Complex have not yet been completed. Several researchers have expressed interest in testing the efficacy of Acetic Acid treatments in areas of the Complex, and monitoring and testing of the controlled inundation approach to Sub-Area 13f may be included in a research proposal. Any full implementation of research protocols developed or implemented in association with the ISP for this Complex will be included in Attachment 5: Research Plan.

43 TSN: ISP-2004-13 Whale’s Tail Complex Site-Specific Spartina Control Pan 6/18/2004

Also potentially proposed for this site are aerial applications of Imazapyr herbicide on Sub-Areas 13a-c. If this experimental work proceeds, a detailed plan will be included in Attachment 5: Research Plan.

44

Attachment 1. Site Maps and Photographs

45

Attachment 2. Work Program

46

Attachment 3. Environmental Compliance

47

Attachment 4. Site Safety and Spill Prevention

48

Attachment 5. Research Plan

SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATION Site Name: Whale’s Tail Complex TSN: ISP-2004-13

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Mitigation Applicable Temporary Comments/Analysis of Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

GEO-1: Erosion or deposition of NA/NE NA/NE - Proposed activities are not None sediment at treatment site ground disturbing and will not elevate erosion above ambient levels.

GEO-2: Erosion or topographic A All Sub-Areas GEO-2 Herbicide: Residual impact LTS/NLTAE None change of marsh and mudflat by Potential impacts mitigated to less than vehicles used in eradication significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation GEO-2). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

GEO-3: Remobilization of sand in A 12d, 12e GEO-3 LTS/NLTAE – No excavation of None cordgrass-stabilized estuarine beaches proposed. Residual estuarine beaches rhizome mats would retard sand remobilization. Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

GEO-4: Increased demand for NA/NE NA/NE- No dredging/sediment disposal None sediment disposal and potential proposed spread of invasive cordgrass via sediment disposal.

49

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Mitigation Applicable Temporary Comments/Analysis of Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

GEO-5: Increased volume and A All Sub-Areas GEO-5 GEO-5 No adverse impact (see EIS/R GEO-5 None velocity of tidal currents in discussion). Site conditions consistent channels due to the removal of with those anticipated in the PEIS/R. invasive cordgrass.

GEO-6: Increased depth and A 12d,12e GEO-6 No adverse impact (see EIS/R GEO-6 None turbulence of tidewaters discussion). Site conditions consistent impounded in salt marsh pans. with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

WQ-1: Degradation of Water A All Sub-Areas WQ-1 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None Quality due to Herbicide mitigated to less than significant (per Application EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation WQ-1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

WQ-2: Degradation of Water A All Sub-Areas WQ-2 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None Quality due to Herbicide Spills mitigated to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation WQ-2). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

WQ-3: Degradation of Water A All Sub-Areas WQ-3 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None Quality due to Fuel or Petroleum mitigated to less than significant (per Spills EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation WQ-3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

WQ-4: Degradation of Water NA/NE NA/NE - No dredging or other sediment- None Quality due to Contaminant mobilizing activities proposed. Remobilization

WQ-5: Water Quality Effects NA/NE NA/NE – This impact only applies to None Resulting from Sediment Accretion EIS/R Alternative 3.

50

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Applicable Comments/Analysis of Mitigation Temporary Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

BIO-1.1: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE – Field surveys found no salt- None tidal marsh plant communities meadow or English cordgrass at this affected by salt-meadow site. cordgrass and English cordgrass.

BIO-1.2: Effects on tidal marsh A All Sub-Areas BIO-1.2 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None plant communities affected by mitigated to less than significant (per Atlantic smooth cordgrass and its EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-1.2). Site hybrids. conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-1.3: Effects on tidal marsh NA/NE NA/NE – Field surveys found no None plant communities affected by Chilean cordgrass at site. Chilean cordgrass.

BIO-1.4: Effects NA/NE NA/NE – Field surveys found no None on submerged aquatic plant eelgrass or other submerged aquatic communities. plants at site.

BIO-2: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE - Field surveys found no special- None special-status plants in tidal status plant species at site. marshes.

BIO-3: Effects on shorebirds and A All Sub-Areas BIO-3 BIO-3 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None waterfowl. mitigated to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-4.1: Effects on the salt marsh A Sub-Areas BIO-4.1 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None harvest mouse and tidal marsh 12a, 12b, mitigated to less than significant (per shrew species. 12c, 12d, 12e EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-4.1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

51

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Mitigation Applicable Temporary Comments/Analysis of Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

BIO-4.2: Effects on resident NA/NE NA/NE - No harbor seal colonies at or None harbor seal colonies of San near site. Francisco Bay.

BIO-4.3: Effects on the southern NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range of None sea otter. southern sea otters.

BIO-5.1: Effects on A Sub-Areas BIO-5.1 as BIO-5.1 as LTS/NLTAE at site – Potential project None California clapper rail. 12a, 12b, modified by modified by impacts mitigated at site. 12c, 12e, 12f UFSWS BO UFSWS BO SU cumulative impacts addressed in EIS/R and CEQA findings.

BIO-5.2: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range black None the California black rail. rails.

BIO-5.3: Effects on tidal marsh A All Sub-Areas BIO-5.3 BIO-5.3 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None song sparrow subspecies and the mitigated to less than significant (per salt marsh common yellowthroat. EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-5.3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-5.4: Effects on A All Sub-Areas BIO-5.4 as BIO-5.4 as LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None California least terns and modified by modified by mitigated to less than significant (per UFSWS BO UFSWS BO EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-5.4). Site owy plovers. western sn conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-5.5: Effects on raptors (birds A All Sub-Areas BIO-5.5 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None of prey). mitigated to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-5.5). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

52

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Applicable Comments/Analysis of Mitigation Temporary Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

BIO-6.1: Effects on A Sub-Areas BIO-6.1 LTS/NLTAE – Potential impacts None anadromous salmonids (winter-run 12a, 12b, 12c mitigated to less than significant (per and spring-run Chinook salmon, EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation BIO-6.1). Site steelhead). conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

BIO-6.2: Effects on delta smelt NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known delta smelt None and Sacramento splittail. and Sacramento splittail range.

BIO-6.3: Effects on the tidewater NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range of None goby. tidewater goby.

BIO-6.4: Effects on estuarine fish A All Sub-Areas BIO-6.4 – LTS/NLTAE with additional mitigation BIO-6.4(b) - R-11 populations of shallow submerged minimize BIO-6.4(b) will not be used intertidal mudflats and channels. spraying adjacent to channel (Note: no mowing proposed accept in to minimize any test plots because of unacceptable potential adverse impacts to birds) affects on estuarine fish.

BIO-7: Effects on NA/NE NA/NE – Outside of known range of None California red-legged frog and San California red-legged frog and San Francisco garter snake. Francisco garter snake.

BIO-8: Effects of regional invasive NA/NE NA/NE – Site activities will not create None cordgrass eradication on mosquito additional mosquito habitat. production.

BIO-9: Effects on tiger beetle NA/NE NA/NE- no potential tiger beetle habitat None species. will be affected.

53

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Applicable Comments/Analysis of Mitigation Temporary Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

AQ-1: Dust Emissions. A All Sub- AQ-1 AQ-1 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts None Areas!Unexp mitigated to less than significant (per ected End of EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation AQ-1). Site Formula conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

AQ-2: Smoke Emissions. NA/NE NA/NE – no burning proposed. None

AQ-3: Herbicide Effects on A All Sub-Areas AQ-3 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts None Air Quality. mitigated to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation AQ-3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

AQ-4: Ozone Precursor NA/NE LTS/NLTAE without mitigation. None Emissions.

AQ-5: Carbon Monoxide (CO) NA/NE LTS/NLTAE without mitigation. None Emissions.

N-1: Disturbance of Sensitive A Sub-Areas N-1 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts None Receptors 12a, 12b, 12c mitigated to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation N-1). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R

HS-1: Worker Injury from NA/NE NA/NE- Methods not proposed on site None Accidents Associated with Manual and Mechanical Cordgrass Treatment.

54

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Applicable Temporary Comments/Analysis of Mitigation Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

HS-2: Worker Health Effects from A All Sub-Areas HS-2 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts None Herbicide Application. mitigated to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation HS-2). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

HS-3: Health Effects to the Public A All Sub-Areas HS-3 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts None from Herbicide Application. mitigated to less than significant (per EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation HS-3). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

HS-4: Health effects to workers or A All Sub-Areas HS-4 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts None the public from accidents mitigated to less than significant (per associated with treatment. EIS/R, Impact/Mitigation HS-4). Site conditions consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

VIS-1: Alteration of Views from A All Sub-Areas VIS-1 SU - impacts addressed in EIS/R and None Removal of Non-Native Cordgrass CEQA findings. Site conditions Infestations. consistent with those anticipated in the PEIS/R.

VIS-2: Change in Views from NA/NE NA/NE- Applies only to PEIS/R None native Marsh, Mudflat, and Open Alternative 3 (No Action) Water to Non-Native Cordgrass Meadows and Monocultures.

LU-1: Land Use Conflicts Between A All Sub-Areas LTS/NLTAE - Limited to less than None Herbicide Use and Sensitive significant by HS, N and AQ mitigations. Receptors

LU-2: Land Use Conflicts from NA/NE NA/NE - Methods not proposed for site None Mechanical and Burning Treatment Methods

55

Applicable Mitigations* Applica (by Treatment Method used at site) Additional ble to Mitigation Applicable Temporary Comments/Analysis of Impact* site sub-site Herbicide Inundation Residual Impact at site Required

CUL-1: Disturbance or Destruction NA/NE NA/NE – No-ground disturbing None of Cultural Resources from Access treatment methods proposed and Treatment.

CUL-2: Loss of Cultural NA/NE NA/NE- No erosion-producing activities None Resources from Erosion. proposed

CUM-1- Effects of wetland A All Sub-Areas Potentially Significant-ISP will attempt None restoration projects on spread of coordination of control work at site with non-native cordgrass the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project.

CUM-2- Cumulative damage to NA/NE NA/NE- No Mosquito Abatement None marsh plain vegetation Districts working on this site

CM-7- Post-treatment invasion by A All Sub-Areas CM-7 CM-7 LTS/NLTAE - Potential impacts None invasive species mitigated to less than significant (per USFWS BO CM-7).

SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECT MITIGATION Site Name: Whale’s Tail Complex, Alameda County TSN: ISP-2004-13 Verification Signatures Applicable Mitigation & Applicable Temporary Implementatio Implementing ISP Field Impact* Conservation Measures (source**) sub-sites Herbicide inundation n Timing Entity Supervisor GEO-2: Erosion or topographic Minimize vehicle use in marsh All sub- X During change of marsh and mudflat by (GEO-2; CM-1) sites treatment vehicles used in eradication

WQ-1: Degradation of Water Apply herbicide directly to plant at All sub- X During Quality due to Herbicide low tide and according to label. sites treatment Application (WQ-1; CM-3 & 4)

56

Verification Signatures Applicable Mitigation & Applicable Temporary Implementatio Implementing ISP Field Impact* Conservation Measures (source**) sub-sites Herbicide inundation n Timing Entity Supervisor WQ-2: Degradation of Water Apply under supervision of trained All sub- X During Quality due to Herbicide Spills applicator (WQ-2;CM-3) sites treatment Implement spill and containment All sub- X During plan provided or approved by ISP sites treatment (WQ-2;CM-17) WQ-3: Degradation of Water Implement spill and containment All sub- X During Quality due to Fuel or Petroleum plan provided or approved by ISP sites treatment Spills (WQ-3;CM-17). BIO-1.2: Effects on tidal marsh Minimize entry and re-entry into All sub- X During plant communities affected by marsh (BIO-1.2;CM-1) sites treatment Atlantic smooth cordgrass and its hybrids. Avoid staging in high, dense All sub- X During vegetation such as gumplant or sites treatment pickleweed (FWS GL) Place mats or other protectors All sub- X During beneath heavy equipment sites treatment operating in sensitive high marsh vegetation, especially gumplant (BIO-1.2) Avoid herbicide application to non- All sub- X During target vegetation adjacent to sites treatment treatment area. (BIO-1.2;CM-3,4) BIO-3: Effects on shorebirds, Avoid working within 1,000 feet of All sub- X X During waterfowl & marshland birds. occupied mudflats during peak sites treatment Pacific Flyway stopovers. (BIO-3) Occupy treatment area soon after All sub- X X During high tide, before mudflats emerge. sites treatment (BIO-3) Haze shorebirds to minimize All sub- X During potential direct contact with sites treatment herbicide drift. (BIO-3)

57

Verification Signatures Applicable Mitigation & Applicable Temporary Implementatio Implementing ISP Field Impact* Conservation Measures (source**) sub-sites Herbicide inundation n Timing Entity Supervisor BIO-4.1: Effects on the salt marsh Use shortest possible access route All sub- X During harvest mouse and tidal marsh through any pickleweed habitat. sites treatment shrew species. Flag areas of repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM-15) Use protective mats or other All sub- X During covering over pickleweed in areas sites treatment or repeated access (BIO-4.1;CM- 15) BIO-5.1: Effects on California Perform work during Sept 1 thru 12b, 12c, X X During clapper rail. Feb 1 to avoid CLRA breading 12d, 12e treatment season (BIO-5.1;CM-18) For work within the Clapper Rail All sub- X X Pre-treatment breeding season, call counts will be sites performed in the early spring according to FWS protocols (CM- 18) Provide CLRA Field biologist 12b, 12c, X X During supervision. (BIO-5.1) 12d, 12e treatment Assure that field personnel are 12b, 12c, X X Pretreatment trained in general CLRA biology 12d, 12e and during and CLRA identification and call treatment detection. (BIO-5.1) Report any CLRA activity 12b, 12c, X X During and immediately to ISP Field 12d, 12e post treatment Supervisor and in post-treatment report (BIO-5.1) BIO-5.3: Effects on tidal marsh Implement CLRA timing restriction All sub- X X During song sparrow subspecies and the (most restrictive). (BIO-5.2) sites treatment salt marsh common yellowthroat.

58

Verification Signatures Applicable Mitigation & Applicable Temporary Implementatio Implementing ISP Field Impact* Conservation Measures (source**) sub-sites Herbicide inundation n Timing Entity Supervisor Report any SMSS and SCYE All sub- X X During and activity immediately to ISP Field sites post treatment Supervisor and in post-treatment report (BIO-5.3) BIO-5.4: Effects on Survey access levees for nesting All sub- X X Pre-treatment California least terns and western CALT and WSPL prior to entry sites snowy plovers. (BIO-5.4;CM-20) Report any CALT and WSPL All sub- X X During and activity immediately to ISP Field sites post treatment Supervisor and in post-treatment report (BIO-5.4) BIO-5.5:Effects on raptors (birds of Minimize helicopter use during All sub- X During prey) nesting season (BIO-5.5) sites treatment Prior to helicopter application of All sub- X Pre-treatment herbicide, a survey by a qualified sites biologist shall determine the presence of nesting raptors in treatment area. (BIO-5.5) Identified nests shall be provided a All sub- X During buffer of 500 feet during spray sites treatment operations. (BIO-5.5) BIO-6.1: Effects on anadromous Target herbicide applications to All sub- X During salmonids (winter-run and spring- minimize herbicide use near sites treatment run Chinook salmon, steelhead). channel. (BIO-6.1) Avoid use of alylphenol ethoxylate All sub- X During surfactants Dec 1 thru April 1 to sites treatment avoid steelhead spawning. (BIO- 6.1) BIO-6.4: Effects on estuarine fish Bio-6.4 – minimize spraying near All sub- X During populations of shallow submerged intertidal mudflats and channels sites treatment intertidal mudflats and channels. (BIO-6.4)

59

Verification Signatures Applicable Mitigation & Applicable Temporary Implementatio Implementing ISP Field Impact* Conservation Measures (source**) sub-sites Herbicide inundation n Timing Entity Supervisor Avoid use of alylphenol ethoxylate All sub- X During surfactants adjacent to channel to sites treatment minimize any potential adverse affects on estuarine fish. (BIO-6.4) AQ-1: Dust emissions Suspend activities when winds are All sub- X X During too great to prevent visible dust sites treatment clouds from affecting sensitive receptors (i.e., houses, schools, hospitals). (AQ-1) Limit traffic speeds on any dirt All sub- X X During access roads to 15 miles per hour. sites treatment (AQ-1) AQ-3: Herbicide effects on air Implement ISP Drift Management All sub- X During quality plan for aerial applications of sites treatment herbicide (AQ-3;CM-3,4) N-1: Disturbance of Sensitive Comply with local noise ordinances All sub- X During Receptors (N-1) sites treatment Avoid use of helicopters within All sub- X During 1,500 feet of hospitals, schools, or sites treatment houses during times of occupancy (N-1) HS-2: Worker Health Effects from Follow handling and application All sub- X During Herbicide Application. procedures as identified on product sites treatment label. (HS-2;CM-3) HS-3: Health Effects to the Public Minimize drift according to ISP drift All sub- X During from Herbicide Application. management plan or equivalent sites treatment (HS-3;CM-3,4) Post appropriate signage (see All sub- X Pre-treatment attached signage requirements) a sites minimum of 24 hours pre-treatment (HS-3;CM-3)

60

Verification Signatures Applicable Mitigation & Applicable Temporary Implementatio Implementing ISP Field Impact* Conservation Measures (source**) sub-sites Herbicide inundation n Timing Entity Supervisor Avoid scheduling herbicide All sub- X Pre-treatment application near high public use sites and during areas during weekends or holidays, treatment or close public access to area 24 hours before and after treatment. (HS-3;CM-3) HS-4: Health effects to workers or Maintain ISP or approved All sub- X During the public from accidents equivalent Site Safety and Spill sites treatment associated with treatment. Prevention plan on site. (HS-4) VIS-1: Alteration of Views from Post appropriate signage according All sub- X Pre-treatment, Removal of Non-native Cordgrass to ISP signage protocols. (VIS-1) sites during Infestations. treatment, post-treatment CUL-1: Disturbance or Destruction Report all discovered prehistoric or All sub- X Pre-treatment of Cultural Resources from Access historic resources to the ISP Field sites and during and Treatment. Supervisor and a qualified treatment archeologist or historic resources consultant and suspend all work at site until archaeological mitigation has taken place. (CUL-1) CM-7: Invasive Species Monitor cleared patches for All sub- X X Post treatment recruitment of invasive plant sites species including perennial pepperweed until native vegetation has become dominant (CM-7)

61